In the case of Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state's right to regulate tribal fishing activities for conservation purposes. The Puyallup Tribe had claimed that their treaty rights exempted them from such regulations, arguing that an 1854 treaty with the federal government granted them unrestricted fishing rights on their reservation and other "usual and accustomed" places. However, while acknowledging these treaty rights, the court held that they were not absolute and could be subject to reasonable regulation by states if necessary for conservation efforts. This decision marked a significant limitation on Native American sovereignty over natural resources within reservations.

In the dissenting opinion for Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, it was argued that the state's regulation on net fishing violated treaty rights granted to the tribe in 1854. The justice disagreed with the majority's view that these regulations were a reasonable and necessary conservation measure, arguing instead they disproportionately impacted tribal members while allowing non-tribal commercial and sports fishers to continue largely unrestricted. He further contended that this case should not be about balancing competing interests but rather upholding established treaty rights which guaranteed tribes' ability to fish "at all usual and accustomed grounds." The justice also expressed concern over potential long-term implications of such rulings, fearing they could set a precedent for states infringing upon other tribal rights under similar justifications.