In the United States v. Fuller case of 1895, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land in Oklahoma that had been assigned to Creek Indians but was later sold to non-Indians. The issue at hand was whether or not this sale violated federal law which stated that such lands could only be transferred with government approval. The defendant, Mr. Fuller, argued he had purchased the land legally from an Indian who held it under a patent issued by President Lincoln in 1867 and therefore did not require additional permission for transfer as per the Intercourse Act of 1834. The court sided with Fuller stating that once a patent is granted by the U.S., it carries all rights and privileges associated with property ownership including its sale or transfer without further need for government consent unless explicitly mentioned in said patent's terms. Therefore, since no restrictions were placed on alienation when President Lincoln issued his patents to these Creek Indians back in 1867, they were free to sell their lands without violating any laws.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Fuller, Justice Brewer argued that the government had not fulfilled its obligations under a treaty with Native American tribes to provide them with land allotments in exchange for their cession of tribal lands. He contended that the government's failure to fulfill these promises constituted a breach of contract and therefore invalidated any subsequent claims it made on those lands. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "Indian country," arguing that it should include all lands set aside by Congress or treaty for Indian use, regardless of whether they were within established reservation boundaries or not. In his view, this broader definition would better protect Native Americans' rights and interests against encroachment by non-Indigenous settlers.