In the United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians et al., 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sioux Nation regarding a dispute over land taken by Congress in 1877. The Black Hills region was originally granted to the tribe through an earlier treaty but was later seized without their consent following a gold discovery on that land. The court held that this seizure constituted a taking under Fifth Amendment eminent domain principles and thus required just compensation for its value at that time plus interest accrued since then, totaling more than $100 million dollars by 1980 when payment began being offered (which has been refused and continues accruing interest). This case is significant as it recognized tribal sovereignty rights and set precedent for future cases involving disputes between Native American tribes and federal government over treaty violations.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to award compensation to the Sioux Nation for land taken by the U.S. government in violation of a treaty agreement. He argued that this case was not about whether or not an injustice had been done - which he agreed it had - but rather if there was legal ground upon which to base a claim for compensation. According to him, previous court rulings and Congressional actions effectively nullified any such claims, making them non-justiciable under existing law. Furthermore, he contended that Congress' 1877 Act taking possession of Black Hills did not constitute a "taking" in constitutional terms requiring just compensation because it involved political negotiations between sovereigns rather than private property rights between individuals.