In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Andrew Hodge, Jr. and Levi Pierce, two men were accused of unlawfully entering a protected Indian reservation in order to hunt game without permission from the local tribe or government authority. The defendants argued that they had not committed any crime because their actions did not violate any federal law at the time; however, the court disagreed and found them guilty on all counts due to their violation of an 1834 treaty between the U.S. government and several Native American tribes which prohibited non-Indians from hunting on tribal lands without express permission from either party involved in said treaty agreement. Ultimately, this decision set a precedent for future cases involving similar issues as it established that treaties made with Native American tribes are legally binding documents which must be respected by both parties involved regardless if there is no specific law prohibiting such activities at present time or not.

In the case of The United States v. Andrew Hodge, Jr. and Levi Pierce, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether or not a treaty between two Native American tribes and the United States government had been violated by Hodge and Pierce when they killed members of one tribe while hunting on land belonging to another tribe. In a 5-4 decision, Justice Curtis wrote an opinion dissenting from that of the majority which held that no violation had occurred because both tribes were under federal protection at all times regardless of where their lands lay in relation to each other's territories. He argued that since treaties are contracts between nations with binding legal force, any breach should be treated as such; thus he concluded that it was wrong for Hodge and Pierce to have killed members of one tribe while hunting on land belonging to another without permission from either party involved in said treaty agreement.