In the 1974 case Decoteau, Natural Mother and Next Friend of Feather et al. v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial District, a Native American mother challenged a state court's jurisdiction over her child custody dispute with her non-Native ex-husband. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the mother, finding that under Public Law 280 (a federal law granting certain states jurisdiction over civil disputes involving Native Americans on reservations), only those states specifically named in the statute could exercise such authority. Since Colorado was not one of these specified states, its courts did not have jurisdiction to decide this particular custody battle between an enrolled tribal member living on reservation land and a non-tribal member.

In the dissenting opinion for Decoteau v. District County Court, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision failed to respect tribal sovereignty and self-governance. He contended that by allowing state courts to have jurisdiction over adoption proceedings involving Indian children living on reservations, the Supreme Court was undermining tribal authority and infringing upon their rights of self-determination. Douglas emphasized that tribes should be able to manage their own affairs without interference from state governments or courts. He also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on Indian children who could be removed from their cultural context through adoption in non-Indian families, arguing this could lead to a loss of cultural identity and heritage. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on Public Law 280 as justification for granting jurisdiction to state courts because it did not specifically mention adoptions or child custody matters.