In the case of Shoshone Tribe of Indians v. United States in 1936, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not the United States government had unlawfully seized land from the Shoshone Tribe. The tribe argued that they were entitled to compensation for their lost lands under a treaty signed in 1863. The court ruled against them, stating that while there was indeed an agreement between both parties, it did not constitute a formal treaty and therefore could not be legally enforced as such. Furthermore, it held that Congress had already compensated them through various appropriations over time which amounted to more than what would have been due under any interpretation of said agreement. This ruling effectively denied Native American tribes legal recourse for past injustices related to land seizures by asserting Congressional power over tribal affairs.

In the dissenting opinion for Shoshone Tribe of Indians v. United States, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to award compensation to the tribe based on a perceived "taking" of their land by settlers and miners. He argued that there was no clear evidence that Congress intended to treat these incursions as takings requiring compensation under Fifth Amendment principles. Instead, he suggested that Congress may have viewed them as part of an ongoing process of negotiation and adjustment between two sovereigns - the U.S government and Indian tribes - each with its own rights and interests at stake. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how such cases had been handled previously; sometimes resulting in payment for lands taken without consent while other times not recognizing any obligation for payment despite similar circumstances. This inconsistency indicated a lack of clarity about what constituted a taking deserving compensation under law or treaty obligations.