In the case of United States of America, Ex Rel. Turner v. Fisher, Secretary of the Interior in 1911, a dispute arose over land allotments under the Dawes Act (1887). The plaintiff was an enrolled member of the Choctaw tribe and claimed that he had been wrongfully denied his share due to misinterpretation by tribal authorities and officials from Department of Interior regarding blood quantum requirements for eligibility. He argued that even though his father was white and mother half-Choctaw-half-white, he should be considered full-blooded because both parents were recognized as members by their community. However, according to federal law at that time which defined Indian status based on biological descent rather than cultural affiliation or recognition by tribal communities; Turner's claim was rejected since he did not meet minimum blood quantum requirement set forth in Dawes Act i.e., one-fourth Indian blood. The Supreme Court upheld this decision stating it is within Congress' power to regulate Native American affairs including defining who qualifies as 'Indian'. This ruling reinforced racialized definition of Indianness thereby excluding many individuals with mixed ancestry from receiving benefits intended for Native Americans despite being culturally affiliated or recognized as such by their tribes.

In the dissenting opinion for United States of America, ex rel. Turner v. Fisher, 1911, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny citizenship rights to Native Americans born within U.S. territory contradicted previous rulings and interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent emphasized that anyone born in the U.S., regardless of race or ethnicity, should be considered a citizen under this amendment unless they are children of foreign diplomats or enemy forces occupying U.S territory during wartime - neither condition applied to Native Americans at their birth time on reservations. Furthermore, it was pointed out that denying them citizenship would perpetuate their marginalization and exclusion from mainstream society while contradicting principles enshrined in American democracy about equality before law irrespective of one's origin or ancestry.