In the case of South Dakota v. Gregg Bourland, etc., et al., 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of tribal authority over non-member hunting and fishing rights on reservation land that was purchased by the federal government and held in trust for tribes. The State of South Dakota had argued it retained jurisdiction over these activities based on a previous agreement with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe when parts of their reservation were flooded due to construction of a dam. However, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for majority stating that while Congress intended to compensate tribe members for lost lands through this purchase, there was no clear intent to also grant state jurisdiction over these areas. Therefore, under existing legal principles affirming inherent tribal sovereignty unless explicitly revoked by Congress or necessary implications from its actions, such regulatory power remained with tribes.

In the dissenting opinion for South Dakota v. Bourland, Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Kennedy, argued that Congress did not intend to abrogate tribal sovereignty over non-Indian hunting and fishing on reservation land when it passed the Flood Control Act or Cheyenne River Act. The dissenters believed that these acts were meant to address water management issues rather than regulate hunting and fishing rights. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "surplus lands," arguing instead that this term referred only to lands available for settlement or sale to non-Indians - a definition which would exclude reservoir project lands from state jurisdiction. The minority justices felt that if Congress had intended such a significant change in policy as transferring regulatory power over these activities from tribes to states, they would have done so explicitly within legislation.