In the 1973 case of Oneida Indian Nation of New York et al. v. County of Oneida, New York, et al., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Oneida Indian Nation (OIN). The OIN had filed a lawsuit against the governments of Oneida County and Madison County in New York for illegally occupying their ancestral lands since 1795 without federal approval as required by law. The court held that non-Indian entities could not purchase land from Native American tribes without federal consent under the Nonintercourse Act passed by Congress in 1790. This ruling allowed for tribal nations to sue to regain possession or claim damages for unlawfully occupied lands even if those claims dated back several centuries. It was a landmark decision affirming Native American rights over their traditional territories.

In the dissenting opinion for Oneida Indian Nation of New York et al. v. County of Oneida, New York, et al., Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to allow the Oneida Indian Nation to sue over land treaties from 1795 was flawed due to its reliance on an "implied cause of action." He contended that there is no explicit provision in federal law granting such a right and it should not be inferred by courts. Furthermore, he pointed out that this case involves complex issues related to sovereignty and property rights which have been traditionally handled through political processes rather than judicial ones. Therefore, he believed it would be more appropriate for these matters to be resolved by Congress or executive agencies with expertise in Native American affairs rather than courts.