The U.S. Supreme Court case Sac and Fox Indians of the Mississippi in Iowa v. Sac and Fox Indians of the Mississippi in Oklahoma, and The United States (1910) revolved around a dispute over funds held by the federal government that were due to be distributed to members of the Sac and Fox tribe. The court had to decide which group was entitled to receive these funds: those living on reservations in Iowa or those who had been relocated to Oklahoma during forced migrations known as Indian Removals. In its decision, the court ruled that both groups should share equally in any distribution from this fund because they were all members of one tribe with common rights regardless their geographical location.

In the dissenting opinion for this case, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of the 1896 Act. The dissenting justices believed that Congress intended to distribute funds from land sales equally among all members of the Sac and Fox tribe, regardless of their location. They contended that there was no clear evidence showing a congressional intent to exclude Iowa-based tribal members from receiving these benefits. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on jurisdictional issues; they asserted that even if Oklahoma-based tribal members were considered as a separate entity under federal law, this did not automatically disqualify Iowa-based tribal members from sharing in proceeds derived from communal lands originally held by both groups before their geographical separation. In essence, they felt that all Sac and Fox Indians should be treated equitably regarding distribution of assets originating from common ancestral property.