In the case of Minnesota, et al. v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians et al., 1998, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians by upholding their hunting and fishing rights on off-reservation land as granted under an 1837 treaty with the federal government. The state of Minnesota had argued that these rights were extinguished when Minnesota became a state in 1858 or through subsequent treaties and executive orders. However, the court found no evidence to suggest that Congress intended to abrogate these rights upon admitting Minnesota into the Union nor did later treaties explicitly revoke them. Furthermore, it was determined that an 1850 Executive Order which allegedly terminated these privileges lacked legal effect because it was not ratified by Congress.

In the dissenting opinion for Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, disagreed with the majority's interpretation of historical treaties and executive orders. They argued that an 1850 Executive Order had indeed terminated any hunting and fishing rights granted to the tribe in a previous treaty from 1837. The dissenters contended that this order was not merely "precatory" or advisory as suggested by the majority but carried legal weight due to its presidential authority. Furthermore, they believed that even if these rights were not explicitly revoked in 1850, they would have been implicitly extinguished when Minnesota became a state in 1858 because new states are admitted on equal footing with existing ones which includes sovereignty over natural resources within their borders. Therefore, according to them granting such privileges to one group infringes upon this principle.