In the case of United States v. Mille Lac Band of Chippewa Indians in Minnesota, 1912, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a treaty signed between the U.S. government and the Mille Lac Band of Chippewa Indians in 1837 granted hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on off-reservation lands to tribal members. The state argued that these rights were extinguished when Minnesota became a state or through subsequent treaties; however, no explicit language terminating these privileges existed within those documents. The court ruled in favor of the tribe by upholding their usufructuary rights based on historical context and interpretation principles for Indian treaties which require any ambiguities be resolved in favor of Native Americans. This decision reaffirmed that such treaty rights can only be abrogated by Congress with clear intent.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Mille Lac Band of Chippewa Indians case argued that the 1855 Treaty with the Chippewa did not grant hunting, fishing, and gathering rights to tribal members on off-reservation lands. The dissenters believed that these rights were extinguished when Minnesota became a state in 1858. They contended that such interpretation was consistent with historical practices and policies at both federal and state levels aimed at assimilating Native Americans into mainstream society by encouraging them to abandon their traditional ways of life including hunting, fishing, and gathering activities. Furthermore, they pointed out potential conflicts between tribal exercise of treaty rights on non-reservation lands and modern-day conservation efforts as well as private property interests which could lead to legal disputes or even social unrest.