The U.S. Supreme Court case New Mexico et al. v. Mescalero Apache Tribe in 1982 revolved around the issue of hunting and fishing rights on a Native American reservation, specifically whether state law or tribal law should govern these activities. The Mescalero Apache Tribe had purchased land within their reservation to create a resort for hunting and fishing, regulated by tribal laws which differed from those of New Mexico State where the land was located. The State argued that it held jurisdiction over wildlife regulation even on tribal lands, while the tribe asserted its sovereign right to manage resources on its own territory. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Mescalero Apache Tribe, affirming that tribes have inherent sovereignty over their reservations unless Congress explicitly states otherwise - which it hadn't done here regarding hunting and fishing regulations. This decision reinforced previous rulings recognizing Indian tribes as distinct political entities with powers of self-governance within their territories.

In the dissenting opinion for New Mexico et al. v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision to allow state regulation of off-reservation hunting and fishing by tribal members was inconsistent with previous case law and federal policy favoring tribal self-governance. He contended that the tribe's treaty rights should be interpreted broadly in its favor, as they were intended to secure a means of livelihood for future generations. Furthermore, he believed that any ambiguity about whether these rights extended beyond reservation boundaries should be resolved in favor of the tribe due to historical injustices suffered by Native American tribes at the hands of states seeking to regulate their activities. Finally, he disagreed with the majority’s view on preemption analysis; instead arguing it must consider not only explicit congressional action but also other aspects such as administrative practices or policies reflecting federal interests.