In the 1895 case of Seneca Nation v. Christy, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Seneca Nation of Indians who were attempting to reclaim land in New York State that they claimed had been illegally sold by their ancestors under a treaty from 1838. The court held that while it was true that federal law required approval for any sale of Indian lands and such approval had not been given, this did not give them jurisdiction over the matter as it was an internal issue within New York state rather than a federal one. Furthermore, even if there had been jurisdiction at some point in time, too much time (over fifty years) had passed since then without action being taken on behalf of the tribe to make legal recourse possible now.

In the dissenting opinion for Seneca Nation v. Christy, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and justice. He contended that treaties between Native American tribes and the U.S government should be regarded as binding contracts, protected by the Constitution. In his view, these agreements could not be unilaterally abrogated or ignored by either party without mutual consent or due process of law. Furthermore, he believed that New York State had violated its obligations under various treaties with the Seneca Nation when it purchased tribal lands without federal approval in 1826 and 1838. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's ruling which held those transactions to be valid despite their non-compliance with federal laws regulating Indian affairs at that time.