The Sanderson v. United States and the Cheyenne Indians case in 1907 revolved around a dispute over land rights. The plaintiff, Sanderson, claimed that he had purchased lands from the Cheyenne Indians which were part of their reservation but not allotted to any specific individual Indian. He argued that these lands were therefore alienable under an Act of Congress passed in 1891 allowing for such transactions with Native American tribes who held communal title to unallotted lands on reservations. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that this particular act did not apply to all tribes universally but only those specifically named within it - which did not include the Cheyennes. Furthermore, they clarified that even if it had applied, consent from both parties (the tribe and Congress) would have been necessary for any sale or transfer of property rights to be valid - something which was lacking in this instance as there was no evidence presented showing Congressional approval for such a transaction.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sanderson v. United States and The Cheyenne Indians, 1907 argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant treaty provisions. This view held that under these treaties, land rights were granted collectively to tribes rather than individually to members. Therefore, individual tribal members should not be able to sell or otherwise dispose of their lands without consent from their tribe as a whole. Furthermore, this perspective contended that even if an individual member did have such rights under a treaty, they would still need federal approval for any land transactions due to Congress' plenary power over Indian affairs. Thus, according to this viewpoint, Sanderson's purchase of lands from individual Cheyenne Indians was invalid both because it lacked tribal consent and federal approval.