In the case of Montana et al. v. United States, 1978, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government over a dispute regarding fishing and hunting rights on an Indian reservation land that was sold to non-Indians. The Crow Tribe had previously ceded territory to the US under an 1868 treaty but retained certain rights including hunting and fishing within those lands unoccupied by settlers. However, when parts of these lands were later sold to non-Indian settlers, it raised questions about whether tribal members still held exclusive rights for hunting and fishing thereon or if state law applied instead. The State of Montana argued that they had jurisdiction over these areas since they were no longer owned by tribe members while the Federal Government contended otherwise citing provisions from previous treaties with Native American tribes which preserved their traditional activities even after land sales. The court sided with the Federal Government ruling that despite changes in ownership, original treaty agreements remained valid unless explicitly nullified by Congress thus allowing tribal members continued access for hunting and fishing purposes without interference from state laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Montana et al. v. United States, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to allow federal regulation of non-Indian fishing and hunting on reservation land was a significant overreach of federal power. He contended that this ruling disregarded previous court decisions which had upheld state jurisdiction in similar matters, and it also ignored Congress' intent when passing relevant legislation. Furthermore, he believed that tribal sovereignty should not be extended to include regulatory authority over non-members who were engaging in activities on property owned by them within the reservation boundaries as it could lead to an unfair balance between tribal members and non-members living or owning property within reservations.