In the case of United States et al. v. Idaho et al., 1935, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government over a dispute with Idaho regarding ownership and control of submerged lands beneath Lake Coeur d'Alene and its adjacent rivers. The state argued that it had acquired these lands upon entering into statehood under common law principles; however, this was contested by the U.S. government who claimed they retained rights to these lands due to their historical use and occupation by Native American tribes (specifically, Coeur d’Alene Tribe). The court held that at the time when Idaho became a state, Congress intended for such land to be reserved for tribal use rather than being transferred to new states as per usual practice under "equal footing" doctrine - thus making them federally owned properties instead.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Idaho, it was argued that the majority's decision to grant federal jurisdiction over certain lands in Idaho infringed upon state sovereignty. The dissenters believed that when Idaho became a state, it gained all rights and privileges associated with statehood including control over its land resources. They contended that any pre-existing agreements or treaties between tribal nations and the U.S government were superseded by this transition to statehood. Furthermore, they disagreed with the interpretation of those treaties as granting exclusive hunting and fishing rights to Native American tribes on these lands; instead arguing such provisions only meant no other tribes could hunt or fish there without permission - not non-tribal entities like states or individuals within them. In their view, if Congress had intended for these lands to remain under federal jurisdiction after Idaho’s admission into Union, they would have explicitly stated so in legislation.