In the 1904 case of New v. Oklahoma, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Indian Territory (which later became part of Oklahoma). The plaintiff, New, was an intermarried citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation and claimed that he had been unlawfully dispossessed from his property by defendants who were non-Indians. He sought to recover possession through legal action but was unsuccessful in lower courts due to jurisdictional issues. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it held that federal law did not provide for such suits between private parties concerning real estate within Indian Territory unless one party is a Native American by blood or adoption. Since neither party met this criterion - despite New's marriage into the tribe - they ruled against him on grounds that there was no federal jurisdiction over disputes involving lands allotted to tribal members if both litigants are non-Indians.

The dissenting opinion in the case of New v. Oklahoma argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of jurisdictional boundaries and tribal sovereignty. The dissenters believed that, according to previous treaties and laws, the land on which a crime was committed by an Indian against another Indian should be considered part of Indian Territory, not Oklahoma Territory. Therefore, they contended that federal courts did not have jurisdiction over such cases; instead it should fall under local tribal authority or possibly state courts after statehood is granted. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on Native American self-governance rights if this ruling were allowed to stand unchallenged.