In the 1935 case of Klamath and Modoc Tribes of Indians v. United States, the tribes sought compensation for land they claimed was taken from them by the U.S. government without just payment. The Supreme Court ruled against the tribes, stating that their claim had no legal basis because it was based on an aboriginal title to land - a right to occupy rather than own - which did not provide grounds for monetary compensation when such lands were seized by sovereign governments like the U.S.. Furthermore, any rights they may have had were extinguished when they voluntarily relocated from California to Oregon in 1864 under a treaty with federal authorities. This relocation involved surrendering claims to their ancestral lands in exchange for new ones provided by the government along with other benefits like housing and farming assistance. Therefore, according to this ruling, these agreements effectively nullified any previous ownership or occupancy rights held by these tribes over those territories.

In the dissenting opinion for Klamath and Modoc Tribes of Indians v. United States, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings regarding Indian land rights. He contended that the government had not fulfilled its obligation to protect tribal lands from encroachment by non-Indians, as established in prior cases. The tribes' title to their ancestral lands should have been recognized and protected under federal law, he asserted, regardless of whether they were formally set aside as a reservation or not. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of an 1864 treaty between the tribes and the U.S., arguing it did not extinguish their aboriginal title but rather confirmed it while also setting up a reservation for them on part of those lands. Thus, according to Justice Stone’s view point any subsequent sale or lease of these tribal lands without explicit congressional approval would be illegal.