The U.S. Supreme Court case Hy-Yu-Tse-Mil-Kin v. Smith in 1903 revolved around a land dispute between Native American tribe members and settlers in Oregon. The plaintiffs, who were tribal leaders of the Rogue River Tribe, claimed that they had never ceded their ancestral lands to the United States government through any treaty or agreement, thus asserting their ownership rights over these territories. They sought to evict white settlers from these lands on this basis. However, the court ruled against them based on two main points: first, it was established that Congress has plenary power over Indian affairs; secondly, even if no formal treaty existed for land cession by the tribe to the U.S., there was evidence of an implicit surrender of title due to military defeat and subsequent removal onto reservations as per federal policy during those times.

In the dissenting opinion for HY-YU-TSE-MIL-KIN v. SMITH, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to adequately protect Native American rights. He contended that tribal lands should be considered "Indian country" under federal law, regardless of whether they were within a formally recognized reservation or not. This would mean that state laws could not apply on these lands without explicit Congressional approval, protecting them from encroachment by non-Native settlers or businesses. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of an 1855 treaty between the U.S government and Yakama Nation; in his view, this treaty guaranteed exclusive use of certain lands to Yakama people rather than merely granting them hunting and fishing rights thereon as interpreted by the court’s majority ruling.