In the United States v. Oregon case of 1934, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not certain lands in Oregon were public lands under federal jurisdiction or if they belonged to the state. The land in question had been granted to a railroad company by Congress but later forfeited back to the government when conditions of use weren't met. However, during this time, some parts of these lands were sold off privately and subsequently acquired by Oregon for unpaid taxes. The court ruled that once these parcels had passed into private ownership through sale from the railroad company, they ceased being part of public domain even after forfeiture back to federal control due to unfulfilled obligations by said company. Therefore, as per ruling made on March 5th 1934; it was decided that such properties could be taxed by states and their title could pass onto them upon non-payment.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Oregon, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a state law that prohibited fishing on certain days of the week. He argued that this law was an unconstitutional violation of treaty rights granted to Native American tribes in Oregon, which guaranteed them unrestricted access to traditional fishing grounds. According to Justice McReynolds, these treaties were binding federal laws and should take precedence over conflicting state regulations. He also contended that by allowing states to restrict tribal fishing practices based on conservation concerns, the court was effectively permitting states to abrogate treaty rights unilaterally without any input from affected tribes or oversight from federal authorities.