In the case of Puyallup Tribe, Inc., et al. v. Department of Game of Washington et al., 1976, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over fishing rights between the state and Native American tribes in Washington State. The court held that while treaties signed in mid-19th century guaranteed tribal members' right to fish "at all usual and accustomed grounds," these rights were not absolute and could be subject to reasonable regulations by conservation authorities for preserving fisheries resources. However, such regulation must meet strict standards: it should not discriminate against tribal fishermen nor can it be used as a means to allocate more fish for non-tribal commercial or sports fisheries at expense of treaty rights; any restriction imposed must also be necessary for conservation purposes. This decision was significant because it affirmed both the continued existence of tribal fishing rights under old treaties but also allowed some room for their regulation by state agencies.

In the dissenting opinion for Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the state's regulation on net fishing violated treaty rights granted to the Puyallup tribe in 1854 and reaffirmed by Congress in 1970. He contended that these treaties guaranteed tribal members' right to fish at "usual and accustomed grounds," which included off-reservation lands as well as reservation waters, without interference from state regulations or restrictions not applicable to non-Indigenous citizens. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that conservation was a valid reason for limiting this right; instead asserting it should only be limited if there were no other means available to achieve conservation goals.