In the United States v. Minnesota case of 1925, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership between the federal government and the state of Minnesota. The issue at hand was whether or not certain lands in Minnesota were owned by the U.S. government under treaties with Native American tribes, or if they belonged to Minnesota due to an act that admitted it as a state in 1858 which granted all unsold public lands within its borders for school purposes. The court held that these particular lands had been reserved by treaties with local tribes before Minnesota's admission into Union and thus remained property of federal government despite this act. Therefore, any proceeds from sales should go to benefitting those tribes rather than funding schools in Minnesota as per their claim.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Minnesota, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision that upheld a state tax on an Indian reservation. He argued that under treaties and federal law, reservations were intended to be sanctuaries where Indians could live free from interference by states. The imposition of a state tax within these boundaries was therefore inappropriate and violated this principle of non-interference. Furthermore, he contended that such taxation would undermine tribal self-government and independence because it subjects tribes to external control against their will. Lastly, he pointed out inconsistencies in previous court rulings regarding similar issues which further complicated matters instead of providing clear guidance or solutions.