This Supreme Court case involved the Cherokee Trust Funds, which were established in 1835 to provide financial support for the Cherokee Nation. The funds were held in trust by the United States government, and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) sought to reclaim the funds. The EBCI argued that the funds were intended to benefit the Cherokee Nation as a whole, and that the funds should be divided among all of the Cherokee tribes. The United States and the Cherokee Nation West (CNW) argued that the funds should be divided among the two tribes, with the CNW receiving the majority of the funds. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the EBCI, ruling that the funds should be divided among all of the Cherokee tribes. The Court held that the funds were intended to benefit the Cherokee Nation as a whole, and that the funds should be divided among all of the Cherokee tribes. The Court also held that the United States had a duty to protect the funds and ensure that they were used for the benefit of the Cherokee Nation. This ruling established the precedent that the United States has a duty to protect the funds of Native American tribes and ensure that they are used for the benefit of the tribe as a whole.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians v. United States and Cherokee Nation, commonly called Cherokee Nation West, argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of an 1835 treaty between the two nations. The dissent argued that this treaty did not grant exclusive rights to either nation over tribal funds or resources; rather it established a trust relationship between them which required both parties to act in good faith when managing these funds for their mutual benefit. Furthermore, they contended that any interpretation which granted exclusive control over tribal assets would be contrary to public policy as well as federal Indian law and should therefore be rejected by the court. Ultimately, they concluded that since neither party had acted with bad faith or mismanaged these funds there was no basis for granting one side exclusive control over them at the expense of another.