The Supreme Court case Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States in 1954 revolved around the issue of land rights and compensation for natural resources extracted from those lands. The Tee-Hit-Ton, a subgroup of the Tlingit Native American tribe in Alaska, sought payment from the U.S. government for timber removed by commercial enterprises that were granted permission by Congress to operate on their ancestral lands without their consent or any form of remuneration offered to them. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that while they had occupancy rights as per "Indian title", this did not equate to full property ownership under U.S law unless formally recognized through a treaty or statute which was absent in this case. Therefore, they weren't entitled to compensation for timber removals because such extraction didn't constitute an illegal seizure under Fifth Amendment protections since it wasn’t considered private property but rather public domain held at Congress's discretion.

In the dissenting opinion for Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of justice and fairness towards Native American tribes. He contended that the U.S government had recognized aboriginal title in previous cases and treaties, implying an obligation to compensate indigenous people for their lands taken by conquest or purchase. The denial of compensation to the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, according to him, represented a failure on part of the court to uphold these obligations and set a dangerous precedent for future dealings with native tribes. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on international law norms regarding conquered peoples as outdated and inappropriate given modern standards of human rights and respect for indigenous cultures.