In the case of New York Indians v. United States in 1897, several tribes of New York Indians sought compensation from the U.S. government for land they claimed was taken from them without proper treaties or payment. The Supreme Court ruled against the tribes, stating that their claim was invalid because it had been too long since the alleged wrongs occurred (the doctrine of laches). Furthermore, it held that even if a treaty had not been properly ratified by Congress as required by law at that time, this did not necessarily mean any subsequent sale or taking of land was illegal. This ruling reinforced federal power over Native American lands and further limited tribal sovereignty rights.

In the dissenting opinion for New York Indians v. United States, 1897, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny compensation to the Seneca Nation of Indians was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that under both international and domestic law, Native American tribes should be recognized as independent nations with inherent rights over their lands. They contended that treaties between these tribes and the U.S government were binding agreements which must be honored by all parties involved. In this particular case, they felt that a previous treaty had clearly granted land in Kansas to the Senecas and therefore they deserved compensation when this land was later taken from them without consent or payment by non-Indian settlers backed by state legislation. The dissenters also criticized what they saw as an unfair bias against Indian claims within federal courts - arguing instead for equal treatment regardless of race or cultural background.