The U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks et al., 1950, revolved around the issue of compensation for tribal lands taken by the federal government from the Alcea Band of Tillamook Indians in Oregon. The tribe had not been compensated when their land was appropriated under an 1855 treaty that was never ratified but acted upon as if it were valid law. In a previous ruling (Alcea Band v. United States), the Indian Claims Commission awarded $29,000 to compensate for this taking; however, both parties appealed this decision - with the tribe arguing they deserved more and the government asserting no payment should be made at all because there was no ratified treaty. In its decision, The Supreme Court ruled that even though there wasn't a formalized treaty between Congress and these tribes, actions taken by both sides demonstrated mutual agreement to terms similar to those found in other treaties during that era – thus constituting what is known as "Indian Title". Therefore, compensation should indeed be given based on fair market value at time of taking rather than merely nominal consideration previously decided upon.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks et al., Justice Jackson disagreed with the majority's decision to award compensation based on the value of land at the time it was taken in 1855, rather than its current value. He argued that this approach failed to consider how much more valuable and productive these lands have become due to advancements in technology and infrastructure since they were seized from Native American tribes. Furthermore, he contended that this ruling contradicted previous decisions where present-day values were used as a basis for compensation when property was unlawfully taken by government action. In his view, such inconsistency undermines public confidence in judicial impartiality and fairness.