In the 1903 Supreme Court case Morris v. Hitchcock, a dispute arose over land rights between private citizens and Native American tribes in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs, who were non-Native settlers, claimed that they had purchased lands from individual tribal members of the Chickasaw Nation and thus held legal title to these properties. However, federal Indian agent Hitchcock argued that such sales were invalid because Congress had passed laws prohibiting any transfer of tribal lands without its approval. The Supreme Court sided with Hitchcock's interpretation of the law, ruling unanimously that only Congress has authority to regulate commerce with Native American tribes under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) of the U.S Constitution - including transactions involving tribal lands. This decision reaffirmed federal supremacy over state or territorial governments in matters related to indigenous affairs and upheld protections for tribal sovereignty against encroachments by non-Native individuals or entities.

In the dissenting opinion for Morris v. Hitchcock, Justice Brewer argued that the government's power to regulate tribal lands should not extend to privately owned property within those boundaries. He contended that once land has been allotted and patented to an individual, it becomes private property and is no longer subject to governmental control as tribal land. Brewer believed this principle was fundamental in American law: when a patent passes from the United States, it divests all control over the land except through general legislation applicable alike to all persons within its jurisdiction. Therefore, he disagreed with majority’s ruling which upheld federal authority over such lands based on treaties with Native American tribes or Congressional acts related thereto.