In the United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians case in 1937, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership between the U.S. government and the Shoshone Tribe. The tribe claimed that they still owned certain lands under an 1863 treaty, despite subsequent settlement by white settlers encouraged by federal policy. The court held that when Congress opened up reservation lands for public sale it effectively took possession of those lands from Native American tribes, regardless of whether compensation was paid or not. Therefore, even though no formal taking had occurred through a ratified treaty or executive order as traditionally required to transfer tribal land to federal control, this did not prevent such taking from having legally taken place due to Congressional action opening up these lands for settlement and development purposes.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision that payment to the tribe by Congress in 1906 constituted compensation for land taken from them. He argued that this interpretation was incorrect as it failed to consider whether or not such a transaction had been agreed upon by both parties involved - namely, the U.S government and Shoshone Tribe. The justice believed there was no clear evidence showing mutual agreement between these two entities regarding this supposed purchase of tribal lands. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases were handled previously; some tribes received full compensation while others did not despite having similar claims and circumstances. This inconsistency undermined fairness and equity principles which should be upheld when dealing with Native American rights issues according to him.