Red Rock v. Henry was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of Native American tribal sovereignty. The case involved a dispute between the Red Rock Band of Chippewa Indians and the state of Minnesota over the ownership of certain lands. The Red Rock Band claimed that the lands were part of their reservation and that they had a right to the land under the Treaty of 1855. The state of Minnesota argued that the lands were not part of the reservation and that the state had the right to the land under the Treaty of 1837. The Supreme Court held that the Treaty of 1855 was the controlling document in the case and that the Red Rock Band had a right to the lands in question. The Court found that the Treaty of 1855 was a valid agreement between the United States and the Red Rock Band and that the Band had a right to the lands under the terms of the treaty. The Court also held that the state of Minnesota did not have a right to the lands under the Treaty of 1837. The decision in Red Rock v. Henry was an important one in terms of Native American tribal sovereignty. The Court's decision affirmed the right of Native American tribes to the lands they had been promised under treaties with the United States. The decision also established that the terms of a treaty between the United States and a Native American tribe were binding and could not be overridden by state law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Red Rock v. Henry, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a treaty between two Native American tribes and the United States government. He argued that by interpreting it as they did, they were essentially allowing one tribe to take land from another without any compensation or consideration of their rights under tribal law. Furthermore, he noted that this interpretation was contrary to both federal Indian policy and established legal precedent regarding treaties with Native Americans. He concluded his dissent by stating that if Congress intended for such an outcome when negotiating this particular treaty then it should have been made clear in its language rather than being left open to interpretation by courts who are not familiar with tribal customs or laws.