In the case of Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1977), a member of the Santa Clara Pueblo tribe, Julia Martinez, challenged an ordinance that denied tribal membership to her children because their father was not a member of the tribe. She argued this violated equal protection principles under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) as male members' children were granted membership regardless of whether they married outside the tribe. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Santa Clara Pueblo, holding that ICRA did not authorize suits against tribes for injunctive or declaratory relief and thus upheld tribal sovereignty over internal affairs including membership decisions. The court also noted Congress's intent to respect self-governance rights when passing ICRA and emphasized federal courts should avoid interfering with these matters unless explicitly authorized by Congress.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, delivered by Justice Brennan and joined by Justices White and Marshall, argued that federal courts should be able to intervene in cases where tribal laws are alleged to violate individual rights protected under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA). The majority's interpretation of ICRA was seen as too narrow, effectively leaving individuals without a remedy for violations of their civil rights. The dissenters believed that Congress intended ICRA not only to limit tribal self-government but also provide protection against arbitrary actions from tribes. They contended that this decision would leave many Native Americans vulnerable with no recourse if their tribe violated their civil rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on sovereign immunity - arguing it shouldn't prevent suits against tribes when fundamental constitutional protections were at stake.