The Tooahnippah v. Hickel case in 1969 involved the descendants of a deceased Native American allottee, who challenged the Secretary of Interior's decision to approve oil and gas leases on inherited land without their consent. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Act of June 25, 1910, as amended by Congress in August 4, 1947 (61 Stat.731), it was within the Secretary’s authority to grant such leases even if some heirs objected or did not participate in leasing negotiations. This act allowed for majority rule among Indian heirs when deciding how to use allotted lands; thus if more than half agreed with a lease proposal then it could be approved regardless of dissenting opinions from minority shareholders.

In the dissenting opinion for Tooahnippah (Goombi), Administratrix, et al. v. Hickel, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding Native American land rights and sovereignty. He contended that Congress did not have unlimited power to dispose of tribal lands without consent or compensation under fair terms. The justice believed that this case represented an unjust seizure of property by the federal government in violation of due process protections outlined in Fifth Amendment to U.S Constitution. Furthermore, he criticized how lower courts handled this case as they failed to consider important factors such as historical context and cultural significance attached with these lands for native tribes which should be respected while making any decisions related to them.