In the Lykins v. McGrath case of 1901, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Kansas City, Missouri. The plaintiff, Lykins claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an Indian woman named Coon-Coo-Coos who was part of the Delaware tribe and argued that she had full rights to sell her property as per an 1860 treaty between the United States and Delaware Indians. However, defendant McGrath contested this claim stating that under federal law only Congress could approve such sales involving Native American lands. The court ruled in favor of McGrath holding that despite any treaties or agreements made by individual tribes or members thereof with non-Native Americans regarding their lands; these transactions were invalid unless approved by Congress due to its exclusive power over Indian affairs under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (Indian Commerce Clause) of US Constitution which gives it authority "To regulate commerce...with Indian Tribes". Therefore, Lykin's purchase was deemed illegal and void.

In the dissenting opinion for Lykins v. McGrath, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax assessment on property located in Indian Territory was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Congress did not have authority to impose such taxes because of treaties with Native American tribes which recognized their sovereignty over these territories. They contended that this taxation violated those agreements and infringed upon tribal self-governance rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of an 1890 act by Congress as granting permission for such taxation; instead, they saw it merely as a measure allowing local governments within Indian Territory to assess and collect taxes from non-Indigenous residents only. Thus, according to them, upholding this tax assessment contradicted both treaty obligations and Congressional intent.