The Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe case in 1977 was a landmark decision by the U.S Supreme Court that determined that tribal courts do not have inherent criminal jurisdiction to try and punish non-Indigenous Americans, unless specifically authorized by Congress to do so. The case arose when Mark David Oliphant, a non-Indian resident of the Port Madison Indian Reservation, was arrested by tribal police for assaulting an officer and resisting arrest during the tribe's annual Chief Seattle Days celebration. He argued that the tribal court had no authority over him as he wasn't an Indigenous American. The Supreme Court agreed with Oliphant's argument stating that any sovereign power – including legal jurisdiction – once possessed by tribes but now inconsistent with their status as domestic dependent nations within US sovereignty has been necessarily divested unless expressly retained through treaty or statute.

In the dissenting opinion for Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of history and law. He contended that tribal sovereignty should be understood as a matter of federal law, not inherent rights. The tribes' power to punish non-Indians is derived from their original sovereign status and treaties with the U.S., which have never been explicitly revoked by Congress or superseded by Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, he believed it was inappropriate for the court to unilaterally limit this power without clear congressional intent. Furthermore, he noted that there were practical reasons for allowing tribes jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit crimes on reservations: local authorities are often better equipped to handle these cases than distant federal courts; moreover, denying them this authority could undermine their ability to maintain order and protect their members' welfare.