In the United States v. Oregon case of 1934, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute over fishing rights in navigable waters within reservation lands granted to Native American tribes by federal treaties. The state of Oregon had attempted to regulate fishing on these lands and prosecuted tribal members for violating state laws. However, the court ruled that such regulation was not within the jurisdiction of individual states but rather under federal control due to pre-existing treaties with native tribes which superseded state law. Therefore, it held that treaty rights guaranteed certain tribes unrestricted fishing access in their "usual and accustomed" places free from interference by any U.S. State's regulations or restrictions.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Oregon case of 1934, argued that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over the lands in question because they were not "public lands" as defined by Congress. The justice contended that these lands had been granted to Oregon upon its admission to the Union and therefore fell under state control. They also disagreed with majority's interpretation of Congressional intent, arguing that it was never intended for these particular types of land grants to be subject to revocation or modification by subsequent legislation. Furthermore, they believed this decision could potentially undermine states' rights and disrupt established legal principles regarding property ownership and control.