In the 1895 case of Hickory v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Hickory, was a member of the Choctaw Nation who claimed that he had been granted a tract of land by his tribe before it became part of Oklahoma Territory. However, after statehood was established and non-Indigenous settlers moved into the area, they disputed his claim to this property. The court ruled against Hickory on two grounds: firstly because tribal law did not recognize individual property rights but held all lands communally; secondly because even if such rights were recognized under tribal law, they would be superseded by federal laws once Oklahoma became part of U.S territory.

In the dissenting opinion for Hickory v. United States, the justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a statute that allowed certain Native American tribes to sell their lands only "under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Interior." The justice argued that this provision did not give absolute power to the Secretary but rather required him to act within reasonable limits set by Congress. He believed that allowing unrestricted discretion would result in an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. Furthermore, he contended that even if one were to accept such broad powers given to executive officials, it was clear from other parts of legislation concerning Indian affairs that Congress intended for tribal lands sales only under specific conditions - namely when they are beneficial for tribes involved and do not infringe upon any rights reserved by them in treaties with U.S government. Therefore, according to his view, since these conditions were not met in this case (as Hickory tribe didn't consent willingly), sale should have been deemed invalid regardless of approval from Secretary.