In the case of Tonasket v. Washington et al., 1972, George Tonasket, a member of the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington state, challenged his conviction for fishing without a license off reservation lands. He argued that he had treaty rights to fish at all usual and accustomed places. The Supreme Court held that while treaties between Native American tribes and the U.S government do grant certain hunting and fishing rights on ceded lands outside reservations, these rights are not absolute but subject to regulation by states under their police power if necessary for conservation purposes. However, such regulations must meet strict scrutiny standards - they must be reasonable and necessary for conservation objectives; they cannot discriminate against tribal members; and there should be no less restrictive alternative available which could serve the same purpose.

In the dissenting opinion for Tonasket v. Washington et al., the justice disagreed with the majority's ruling that a state could impose taxes on an Indian reservation without violating federal law. The dissent argued that such taxation was inconsistent with both historical precedent and Congressional intent, which had traditionally recognized tribal sovereignty and exempted reservations from state jurisdiction unless explicitly provided by Congress. They contended that this decision undermined tribal self-governance and economic development, as it allowed states to unilaterally interfere in internal reservation affairs and potentially exploit their resources without consent or compensation. Furthermore, they believed it contradicted previous Supreme Court rulings affirming these protections against state encroachment under federal law.