In the 1892 case of Phineas Pam-To-Pee v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving Native American land rights. The plaintiff, Phineas Pam-To-Pee, was a member of the Pottawatomie tribe who claimed that he had been unlawfully dispossessed from his tribal lands by white settlers under federal protection and sought compensation for this loss. However, the court held that since these lands were not technically owned by individual members of the tribe but rather held in common by all members collectively under tribal sovereignty, Pam-To-Pee did not have standing to sue individually for their loss. Furthermore, it was determined that any disputes over such communal property should be resolved through negotiation between tribes and federal authorities rather than litigation in courts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Phineas Pam-To-Pee v. United States disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Indian Intercourse Act, arguing that it did not apply to crimes committed by one Native American against another on tribal lands. The dissent argued that Congress had intended for tribes to maintain their sovereignty and handle internal matters independently, without interference from federal courts. They believed that extending U.S jurisdiction into these areas was an overreach of power and a violation of tribal rights. Furthermore, they contended that if Congress had wanted such crimes to fall under federal jurisdiction, they would have explicitly stated so in legislation.