The U.S. Supreme Court case Kirby et al. v. United States, for and on behalf of the Crow Tribe of Indians, 1922 revolved around a dispute over land rights between private citizens and the Crow Tribe of Indians in Montana. The plaintiffs, Kirby et al., were non-Indian settlers who had purchased lands from the federal government that were previously part of an Indian reservation under a treaty with the U.S.. However, these lands contained valuable coal deposits which were reserved by Congress for tribal use when it opened up reservation land to settlement by non-Indians through homesteading laws. When Kirby attempted to mine this coal after purchasing his plot from another settler who had originally obtained it through homesteading laws, he was sued by the United States on behalf of the tribe for trespassing on their mineral rights. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Kirby and upheld that while surface rights could be transferred to settlers under homestead acts; subsurface mineral rights remained vested with tribes unless explicitly stated otherwise in treaties or legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for Kirby et al. v. United States, Justice Holmes argued that the Crow Tribe of Indians should not be entitled to compensation from coal mined on their reservation by non-tribal members because they had sold their rights to the land in question under an 1868 treaty with the U.S. government. He contended that while it was true that this agreement did not explicitly mention mineral rights, it could reasonably be inferred from its terms and historical context that these were included in what was sold. Moreover, he pointed out that Congress had ratified a subsequent agreement between tribal leaders and mining companies which clearly assumed such rights were no longer held by the tribe - suggesting lawmakers also interpreted original treaty as transferring them to federal control.