The United States v. Washington case in 1976, also known as the Boldt Decision, was a landmark legal battle that affirmed the fishing rights of Native American tribes in Washington state. The U.S government sued on behalf of these tribes arguing that they were entitled to half of all fish harvests based on treaties signed back in mid-19th century which promised them "the right to take fish at usual and accustomed grounds." The State argued this only gave them a right to fish but did not guarantee any specific amount. However, Judge George Hugo Boldt ruled in favor of the tribes stating that they were indeed entitled to up to 50% of each year's catch from their traditional fishing areas. This decision has had significant implications for fisheries management and tribal sovereignty issues across the country.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Washington, 1976, Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that the majority's interpretation of the treaty was overly broad and not in line with its original intent or historical context. He contended that when signing treaties with Native American tribes, it was understood by both parties involved that fishing rights were being granted to individual tribe members rather than to tribes as collective entities. Therefore, he believed these rights should be subject to regulation by state law like any other private right. Additionally, he disagreed with the majority's view that tribal fishing rights included a guarantee of moderate living standards derived from fishery resources; instead asserting this concept had no basis in either text or history of treaty negotiations.