In Choctaw Nation v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States had the right to take land from the Choctaw Nation without their consent. The Choctaw Nation argued that the United States had no right to take their land without their consent, as it was a violation of their treaty rights. The United States argued that they had the right to take the land as it was necessary for the construction of a railroad. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the United States, ruling that the United States had the right to take the land without the consent of the Choctaw Nation. The Court reasoned that the United States had the right to take the land as it was necessary for the construction of a railroad, and that the Choctaw Nation had no right to prevent the United States from taking the land. The Court also noted that the United States had paid the Choctaw Nation for the land, and that the Choctaw Nation had not objected to the payment. The Court's decision in Choctaw Nation v. United States established that the United States had the right to take land from Native American tribes without their consent, as long as the United States paid for the land and the taking was necessary for a public purpose. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and has been used to justify the taking of Native American land for various public purposes.

In Choctaw Nation v. United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a treaty between the United States and the Choctaw Nation of Indians had been violated by Congress when it passed legislation that allowed for certain lands to be sold without consent from the tribe. The majority opinion held that Congress did indeed have authority to pass such laws, as they were within its power under Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution. However, Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that while Congress may have had some authority over Indian tribes in regards to their land rights, it could not violate any treaties made with them without first obtaining their consent. He further stated that if such an act occurred then it would be unconstitutional as well as a breach of faith towards those who entered into said agreements with good intentions and expectations of being able to rely upon them in perpetuity.