In the case of Eastern Cherokees v. United States (1911), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, who claimed they were entitled to compensation from land ceded to the U.S. government under various treaties dating back to 1835-36. The court held that these Native Americans had a legitimate claim against Congress for funds derived from their ancestral lands, which had been sold without proper consent or adequate compensation provided. This landmark decision recognized and affirmed tribal rights over ancestral lands and set a precedent for future cases involving indigenous land claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Eastern Cherokees v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider historical context and treaty obligations. The dissenting justices believed that the 1835 Treaty of New Echota, which led to forced removal of Cherokee Indians from their ancestral lands in Southeastern U.S., did not extinguish all Cherokee rights to these lands. They contended that a significant number of Eastern Cherokees never agreed with or participated in this treaty and thus retained certain rights under previous treaties. Furthermore, they asserted that subsequent dealings between these non-removed Cherokees and federal government indicated recognition of such residual rights by both parties. Therefore, they concluded that Congress' refusal to compensate Eastern Cherokees for land ceded under disputed circumstances violated principles of justice and equity as well as international law norms governing interpretation of treaties with indigenous peoples.