In the case of Philip Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation et al., 1988, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a Native American tribe had authority to zone lands owned by non-Indians within reservation boundaries. The dispute arose when Philip Brendale, a non-Indian landowner on the Yakima Reservation in Washington State, sought to develop his property but was denied permission by tribal authorities due to zoning laws. The court ruled in favor of Brendale stating that while tribes do have certain sovereign powers over their reservations, these did not extend to controlling land use on privately-owned plots held by non-members unless it could be proven that such development would harm or threaten tribal political integrity or welfare. This decision underscored limitations on tribal sovereignty and highlighted complexities surrounding jurisdictional issues within reservation territories.

In the dissenting opinion for Philip Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, Justice Blackmun argued that tribal authority over zoning on fee lands within an open reservation should be recognized as a part of inherent tribal sovereignty. He emphasized that such power is crucial to self-government and territorial management, which are key aspects of sovereignty. The majority's decision not to recognize this authority undermines tribes' ability to protect their cultural integrity and social welfare by managing land use within their reservations. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in the court's approach towards recognizing other forms of civil jurisdiction over nonmembers on fee lands while denying zoning powers specifically. He also criticized the majority’s reliance on 'checkerboarding', stating it was irrelevant since Congress had already acknowledged tribal jurisdiction despite checkerboard ownership patterns when it passed relevant legislation.