In the United States v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma case in 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had not violated any laws by refusing to compensate the Cherokee Nation for land taken from them under an 1866 treaty. The tribe claimed they were owed compensation due to a provision in an earlier treaty which stated that if any portion of their lands was sold or ceded away, they would be compensated at a fair valuation. However, this claim was rejected on two grounds: firstly because it was deemed too late as there is a six-year statute of limitations on such claims; and secondly because Congress had already provided some form of compensation through various legislative acts over time. Thus, while acknowledging past injustices against Native American tribes including forced removals and broken treaties, the court held that these historical wrongs could not justify ignoring established legal principles when deciding contemporary cases.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's interpretation of the 1866 treaty was incorrect and unjustly favored non-Indian settlers over Indian tribes. He contended that under a proper reading of the treaty, it did not grant settlers an unrestricted right to use tribal lands but rather limited their access to specific purposes such as railroads or highways. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on subsequent historical events instead of focusing on what parties intended at the time they signed this agreement. According to him, these later developments should not be used retroactively to reinterpret original terms in ways that disadvantage indigenous groups who were already vulnerable during negotiations due to power imbalances and language barriers.