In the case of Rex, Administratrix of Ivie v. United States and Ute Indians in 1919, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership between Mrs. Rex (the widow and administratrix of Mr. Ivie's estate) and the Ute Indian Tribe. The conflict arose when Mr. Ivie was killed on land that he claimed to own but which was also claimed by the tribe as part of their reservation under an 1868 treaty with the US government. Mrs.Rex sued for damages alleging wrongful death caused by members of Ute Indian Tribe while her husband was within his rights on his property. The court ruled against Mrs.Rex stating that it lacked jurisdiction to hear her claim because Congress had not explicitly provided a means for individuals to sue Native American tribes in federal courts at that time.The decision upheld tribal sovereignty, affirming that unless Congress has authorized such suits or tribes have waived their immunity from suit, they cannot be sued in federal courts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Rex, Administratrix of Ivie, v. United States and Ute Indians argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying compensation for cattle lost during a raid by Ute Indians was incorrect. The dissenters believed that the government had failed in its duty to protect settlers from Indian raids as stipulated under treaty obligations. They contended that this failure constituted negligence on part of the government and thus it should be held liable for damages suffered by settlers due to such raids. Additionally, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "depredations" clause within treaties which according them only covered individual acts not sanctioned by tribal authorities rather than collective actions like raids conducted by tribes or bands thereof.