In the case of The Creek Nation v. United States in 1937, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership between the Creek Nation and the U.S. government. The Creek Nation claimed that they were entitled to compensation for lands in Oklahoma that had been taken from them by the federal government without consent or payment under various treaties dating back to 1833. They argued this was a violation of their rights as established by these treaties and sought financial restitution for these lands which included oil-rich territories. The court, however, rejected their claim stating that while there may have been some ambiguity regarding certain aspects of those treaties, it did not change the fact that Congress held plenary power over Native American tribes including decisions about tribal property rights. Therefore, any actions taken by Congress concerning tribal lands were considered legal even if they appeared unfair or unjust according to modern standards. This decision reaffirmed Congressional authority over Native American affairs and underscored how historical injustices against indigenous peoples often went uncompensated due to legal principles such as plenary power.

In the dissenting opinion for The Creek Nation v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider and respect the sovereignty of Native American tribes. It was contended that by allowing federal authorities to unilaterally alter or abolish tribal rights without their consent, this ruling undermined established principles of self-determination and autonomy for indigenous peoples. Furthermore, it was suggested that such a precedent could potentially lead to further encroachments on tribal lands and resources in future cases. This view held that any changes to treaties with Native American nations should be made through negotiation rather than imposed by judicial fiat, reflecting a belief in upholding these agreements as binding legal contracts between sovereign entities.