In the United States v. Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians case in 1907, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land rights between Native American tribes and the federal government. The Sisseton and Wahpeton bands claimed that they were not adequately compensated for lands ceded to the United States under an 1867 treaty. They argued that their ancestors did not fully understand what they were signing due to language barriers, thus making it invalid or at least subject to renegotiation. However, the court held against them stating that even if there was misunderstanding or miscommunication during negotiations, it does not invalidate treaties made in good faith by both parties involved as per established legal principles of contract law applied internationally including dealings with Indian nations within US territories.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny compensation to the tribes for lands ceded in 1867 was unjust. The dissenting justices believed that this case should have been treated as a breach of contract by the U.S government, who had promised payment in exchange for land but failed to deliver on their promise. They contended that while Congress may have intended not to pay at all when they ratified an agreement with ambiguous terms regarding payment, this intention cannot be used as justification for non-payment because it is contrary to principles of fairness and justice. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies between how similar cases were handled previously and how this one was decided upon - arguing that past decisions set a precedent which should've been followed here too. In conclusion, these justices felt strongly about upholding contractual obligations made with Native American tribes and ensuring fair treatment under law.