In the 1985 case, Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of tribal jurisdiction over civil disputes involving non-Indigenous parties on reservation land. The dispute arose when a North Dakota engineering firm refused to pay taxes imposed by the Three Affiliated Tribes for work done on their reservation. The court held that tribes retain inherent sovereignty and have authority to regulate economic activity within their territories unless specifically prohibited by Congress. This decision reaffirmed previous rulings supporting tribal self-governance and clarified that state law does not automatically apply within reservations even if it involves non-members.

In the dissenting opinion for Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., et al., Justice O'Connor argued that tribal courts should not have jurisdiction over nonmembers unless explicitly authorized by Congress or if necessary to protect tribal self-government or control internal relations. She contended that extending such jurisdiction could potentially infringe upon individual rights and liberties protected under U.S constitutional law which may not be recognized in a tribal court setting. Furthermore, she expressed concern about potential bias within these courts due to their close ties with tribal governments and communities. This view was based on an interpretation of previous rulings where it was held that tribes cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians without explicit congressional authorization, suggesting civil cases should follow suit.