In the case of Choctaw Nation et al. v. Oklahoma et al., 1969, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether certain lands submerged under navigable waters in Oklahoma belonged to the state or to three Native American tribes (Choctaw, Chickasaw and Cherokee Nations). The dispute arose from differing interpretations of treaties signed between these tribes and the federal government during the 19th century. The court ruled in favor of Oklahoma, stating that upon its admission into Union in 1907, it gained ownership over all lands beneath navigable waters within its borders unless expressly stated otherwise by Congress. This included areas previously allocated to Native American tribes through historical treaties. Therefore, despite previous agreements made with tribal nations regarding land rights prior to statehood, those specific underwater territories were deemed property of the state following its official inclusion as a part of United States territory.

In the dissenting opinion for Choctaw Nation et al. v. Oklahoma et al., Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and federal policy regarding Native American tribes' rights to land and water resources. He contended that the 1830 Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, which granted lands to the Choctaw Nation "as long as grass grows or water runs," should be interpreted literally, thereby giving them ownership over both land and navigable waters within their territory. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for ignoring a key principle in Indian law: ambiguities in treaties should be resolved in favor of Native Americans due to their disadvantaged position during negotiations. In his view, this case represented an opportunity for reaffirmation of tribal sovereignty rather than its erosion.