In the 1901 case of Hotema v. United States, a Native American named Hotema sued the U.S. government for compensation over land that he claimed was wrongfully taken from his tribe by the Treaty of Greenville in 1795. He argued that this treaty was invalid because it had not been ratified by two-thirds of Senate members as required by Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution (the Treaty Clause). The Supreme Court ruled against Hotema on several grounds: firstly, they found no evidence to suggest that ratification requirements applied to Indian treaties; secondly, they noted that even if such requirements did apply and were not met at the time, subsequent actions by Congress and other branches had effectively validated these treaties; thirdly and most importantly - according to legal doctrine known as "laches" - they held that too much time had passed since alleged violation occurred for plaintiff's claim to be considered valid anymore.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hotema v. United States, 1901 is not available or recorded. The Supreme Court's decision was unanimous and did not include a dissenting opinion.