In the case of McDaniel et al. v. Sanchez et al., 1980, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land in Nevada that was claimed by both Native Americans and non-Native settlers. The court held that Congress had not intended to extinguish native title to the Western Shoshone lands when it passed an act in 1861 creating Nevada as a territory or when it admitted Nevada into statehood in 1864. Therefore, these acts did not constitute "clear and plain" evidence of congressional intent to terminate Indian occupancy rights. The court also found that certain actions taken by federal officials - such as issuing patents for mining claims on Western Shoshone lands - were inconsistent with recognition of continuing Indian occupancy rights but did not amount to termination of those rights because they lacked clear congressional authorization. Finally, the court rejected arguments based on laches (unreasonable delay) and acquiescence (passive acceptance), holding that neither doctrine could be used against Indians claiming aboriginal title due to their unique status under federal law. This decision reaffirmed principles established in earlier cases regarding interpretation of statutes affecting Indian lands and reinforced protections for tribal sovereignty.

In the dissenting opinion for McDaniel et al. v. Sanchez et al., Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a New Mexico law that allowed non-Indians living on Indian reservations to vote in state and local elections, but not tribal ones. He argued that this violated equal protection principles because it discriminated based on race or national origin, which is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S Constitution. Furthermore, he contended that there was no compelling governmental interest justifying such discrimination as required by strict scrutiny review -the highest standard of judicial review used by courts when considering constitutional questions involving potential violations of civil liberties or rights-. Lastly, he expressed concern about how this ruling could potentially undermine tribal sovereignty and self-governance.