In the Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe et al., 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court examined a dispute between the state and tribal authorities over fishing rights in Washington State's Puyallup River. The case centered on whether or not treaties signed in mid-19th century granted exclusive fishing rights to Native American tribes, specifically for steelhead trout during their spawning season. The court ruled that while these treaties did grant special privileges to indigenous groups, they were not absolute and could be subject to reasonable regulation by state conservation efforts if applied without discrimination against both non-tribal and tribal fishers alike. However, it was also determined that any regulations must respect the tribe’s right to a fair share of available fish as per treaty agreements.

In the dissenting opinion for the Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe et al., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding treaty rights. He contended that treaties should be interpreted as they would have been understood by the Indians at the time, and in this case, he believed it meant an equal right to fish alongside non-Indians without restrictions or limitations imposed by state regulations. Furthermore, he disagreed with limiting tribal fishing rights based on conservation needs when commercial and sports fishermen were not similarly restricted. In his view, if there was indeed a need for conservation measures due to overfishing or other reasons, all parties - including commercial and sports fishermen - should bear these burdens equally rather than placing them solely on Indian tribes who had historically relied on fishing for their livelihoods.