In the case of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife et al. v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 1984, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Klamath Indian Tribe regarding their hunting rights on a former reservation land that had been sold to non-Indians by Congress in 1954. The court held that despite this sale, tribal members retained treaty-guaranteed hunting rights on these lands as they were not explicitly extinguished by Congress when it terminated federal supervision over the tribe's property and affairs. This decision was based on an interpretation of statutory language and legislative history which suggested that while termination intended to end federal trusteeship over tribal property and remove restrictions on alienation, it did not intend to abrogate treaty-guaranteed hunting rights unless expressly stated so.

In the dissenting opinion for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife et al. v. Klamath Indian Tribe, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of an 1864 treaty between the United States and the Klamath Indian Tribe. He argued that this treaty did not extinguish tribal hunting rights on lands ceded to the U.S., but instead preserved them unless explicitly terminated by Congress - which had not occurred in this case. Brennan contended that historical context supported his view, as it was common practice during that era for treaties to implicitly reserve such rights for tribes unless specifically stated otherwise. Furthermore, he criticized what he saw as a departure from established principles of interpreting Native American treaties: namely, construing ambiguities in favor of tribes and considering their understanding at negotiation time.