In the United States v. Mitchell et al., 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Native American tribes who claimed that they were owed compensation by the federal government for timber harvested from their lands. The case centered on whether or not a fiduciary relationship existed between the U.S. government and tribal nations, with regard to managing natural resources found on tribal lands. The court held that such a relationship did exist based on previous treaties and statutes which gave control over these resources to the federal government but also required it to act in best interests of tribes when selling those resources. This decision affirmed that if this duty was breached, then damages could be awarded under Indian Tucker Act - an act allowing native tribes to bring claims against US Government before Federal courts.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Mitchell et al., Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens, argued that the majority's interpretation of the General Allotment Act was incorrect. They contended that while it is true that Congress intended to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream society through this act, it did not intend to absolve itself from its fiduciary duties towards them in managing their lands and resources. The dissenting justices believed that these responsibilities were implicitly included in the Act due to prior legal precedent and historical context surrounding U.S.-Native American relations at the time of its enactment. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's view which held no trust relationship existed between federal government and individual allottees concerning timber on allotted lands; thus denying any claim for damages against mismanagement by government officials.