In the case of United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks et al., 1946, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not compensation should be awarded to the Alcea Band of Tillamooks for land taken from them by the federal government in 1855 without any formal treaty or payment. The court ruled in favor of the tribe, stating that they were entitled to compensation for their lost lands based on "fair market value" at the time it was taken. This decision marked a significant shift towards recognizing and compensating Native American tribes for past injustices related to land seizures by setting a precedent that indigenous peoples could bring claims against the federal government even if no formal treaty had been violated.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks et al., Justice Jackson argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and unjust towards Native American tribes. He contended that the Court had previously recognized aboriginal title as a legitimate property right, not merely a privilege granted by Congress. Therefore, he believed it was wrong to deny compensation for lands taken from tribes without their consent or fair payment. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on an 1855 treaty which did not explicitly extinguish tribal land rights but rather promised future negotiations over these rights - negotiations which never occurred due to government negligence. In his view, this failure should not be used against tribes seeking justice today.