In the 1941 case of Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled against the Sioux Tribe's claim for compensation from the federal government for land taken in violation of an 1868 treaty. The tribe argued that they were entitled to damages under a statute allowing suits by Indian tribes whose lands had been seized without just compensation. However, the court held that this law did not apply because it was intended only for cases where there was no legal remedy available at all and in this instance, Congress had already provided a mechanism through which such claims could be heard - namely through legislation passed in 1920 authorizing five-year leases on tribal lands. Therefore, since there existed another avenue to seek redress (even though it might have been less favorable), their suit under this particular statute was dismissed.

In the dissenting opinion for Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was unjust and failed to uphold the rights of Native Americans as outlined in previous treaties with the U.S. government. He contended that these agreements should be honored and interpreted as they would have been understood by the Sioux at their signing, rather than being subjected to a modern reinterpretation favorable to non-Native interests. Furthermore, he criticized what he saw as an unfair process where Congress unilaterally determined compensation without proper consultation or agreement from tribal representatives. In his view, this violated principles of fairness and equity inherent in American law and disregarded established legal precedent regarding treaty interpretation.