The U.S. Supreme Court case Gritts v. Fisher, Secretary of the Interior, and MacVeagh, Secretary of the Treasury in 1911 revolved around a dispute over land allotment rights for Native Americans under federal law. The plaintiff was an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation who had received an allotment of land as part of a government program to distribute tribal lands among individual members. However, she later sold her allotted parcel without obtaining approval from the Department of Interior as required by law at that time. When she attempted to sell another piece from her original allotment years later, it was discovered that she had previously violated this requirement and thus faced legal repercussions including potential loss or forfeiture of her remaining property rights. In its decision on this matter, the Supreme Court ruled against Gritts stating that even though there were no explicit penalties outlined in legislation for selling allotted lands without governmental approval; such actions could still be considered illegal and subject to punishment based on existing laws governing property transactions involving Native American individuals or tribes.

In the dissenting opinion for Gritts v. Fisher, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny Ms. Gritts' claim on her late husband's allotment of land was unjust and not in line with established law or policy regarding Native American rights. The dissent pointed out that Ms. Gritts had been married to a Cherokee citizen and thus should be considered as having equal rights under tribal laws, including property ownership after her spouse’s death. They also highlighted that she had lived among the tribe for many years and contributed significantly to its community life, further strengthening her claim over the disputed land parcel according to existing regulations governing Indian affairs at that time.