In the case of United States of America, as Trustee and Guardian of the Omaha Tribe of Indians, et al., v. Chase in 1917, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a lease agreement between an Indian tribe and a non-Indian tenant required approval by federal authorities. The Omaha Tribe had leased land to William H. Chase without obtaining such approval from the Secretary of Interior or any other government official. When Mr. Chase failed to pay rent under this lease agreement, both parties sought legal resolution regarding its validity. The court ruled that leases made by Indian tribes were subject to federal law requiring governmental oversight and approval due to their status as wards under U.S guardianship; thus making them unable legally bind themselves into contracts without consent from their guardian - in this case being represented by Federal Government officials like Secretary Of Interior etc.. Therefore, since no such permission was obtained for leasing lands owned by Omaha tribe before entering into contract with Mr.Chase , it rendered said contract null & void . Consequently , he wasn't liable for unpaid rents claimed against him based on invalid contractual obligations.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States of America, as Trustee and Guardian of the Omaha Tribe of Indians, et al., v. Chase argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to adequately consider the historical context and intent behind treaties made between Native American tribes and the U.S. government. The dissenters believed that these treaties should be interpreted as having been intended to protect tribal lands from encroachment by non-Native settlers, rather than simply defining boundaries for purposes of jurisdiction or taxation. They also felt that any ambiguity in such agreements should be resolved in favor of Native Americans due to their disadvantaged position during negotiations with federal authorities. Furthermore, they criticized what they saw as an overly narrow interpretation by the majority regarding which types of land transactions required congressional approval under existing laws protecting Indian property rights.