In the 1972 case United States v. Jim et al., the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving Native American fishing rights in Washington state. The defendants, members of the Lummi Indian Tribe, were charged with violating state law by using nets to fish for salmon off reservation land without a license. They argued that their treaty rights exempted them from such regulations. The court agreed with this argument and reversed previous rulings against them. The decision was based on an interpretation of an 1855 treaty between several tribes and the U.S government which guaranteed "the right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds." This phrase was interpreted as including off-reservation locations where tribes traditionally fished before European contact. This ruling affirmed tribal sovereignty over natural resources, setting important precedent for future cases related to indigenous rights in America.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Jim et al., the justice argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of both historical and legal context. The dissent emphasized that tribal fishing rights, as established by treaty, should not be subject to state regulation unless explicitly stated in said treaties. They pointed out that these treaties were negotiated between sovereign entities and thus should be interpreted as such; any ambiguity should favor tribes due to their disadvantaged position during negotiations. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's reliance on previous court decisions which had already been criticized for their lack of understanding about Native American history and culture. In conclusion, they believed this ruling undermined tribal sovereignty and failed to uphold treaty obligations.