In the 1912 case of Starr v. Long Jim, the United States Supreme Court dealt with issues related to Native American land rights and inheritance laws. The dispute arose when a member of the Yakama Nation named Long Jim passed away, leaving behind property that he had purchased from another tribal member named George Starr. Upon his death, Long Jim's wife inherited this property as per tribal customs and practices. However, George Starr contested this transfer of ownership claiming it violated federal law which required approval from government officials for any sale or transfer of Native American lands. The court ruled in favor of Mrs. Long Jim stating that since both parties involved were members of the same tribe and lived on reservation land at all times relevant to this transaction; their actions were governed by tribal law rather than federal statutes unless explicitly stated otherwise by Congress. This decision affirmed respect for native sovereignty over internal affairs including property transactions among its members within reservation boundaries unless specifically overridden by Congressional legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for Starr v. Long Jim, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-Indians from fishing in certain areas reserved for tribal use infringed on rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent contended that this ruling created an unfair racial distinction and violated equal protection under the law by granting exclusive privileges to one group based solely on their race or nationality. They believed that while treaties with Native American tribes should be respected, they should not supersede constitutional protections against discrimination. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of these treaties as establishing exclusive fishing rights for tribes rather than simply guaranteeing them access to traditional fishing grounds alongside other citizens.