In the 1917 case of Sweet et al. v. Schock, Treasurer of Okmulgee County, State of Oklahoma, et al., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and taxation in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs were members of the Creek Nation who had been allotted lands under an agreement between their tribe and the United States government which exempted them from state taxes for a period of time. However, when they attempted to sell their lands within this exemption period, they found that county officials had placed tax liens on these properties making it impossible for them to be sold without first paying off these debts. They argued that this was contrary to federal law protecting Native American property rights and sought relief from these unjust tax burdens. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sweet et al., holding that as long as there is no explicit Congressional authorization allowing such taxation by states or counties on Indian allotments during periods where they are legally exempted from such levies under tribal agreements with the Federal Government; any attempt at doing so would be considered illegal interference into federally protected property rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sweet et al. v. Schock, Treasurer of Okmulgee County, State of Oklahoma, et al., argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles established by the Supreme Court regarding taxation on Indian lands. The dissenters believed that Congress had not intended to subject these lands to state taxation when it passed legislation allowing for their allotment to individual Indians. They pointed out that such a tax would be burdensome and unfair given the economic circumstances faced by many Native Americans at this time period. Furthermore, they contended that if Congress had indeed wished for these lands to be taxable under state law, it could have explicitly stated so in its legislation but did not do so.