In United States v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that a federal district court had jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the United States against several Indian tribes and their members for fishing rights in Puget Sound. The dispute arose from an 1855 treaty between the tribes and the U.S., which granted certain fishing rights to tribal members in exchange for ceding land to the government. The lower courts had ruled that they lacked jurisdiction over this matter because it was based on an Indian treaty, but the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that Congress has given federal courts authority over such disputes through its plenary power over Indian affairs as well as other statutes related to fisheries management. Ultimately, this decision affirmed both congressional authority and tribal sovereignty while also recognizing that these two interests can sometimes conflict with each other when it comes to matters of natural resources like fish stocks or hunting grounds.

In the dissenting opinion of United States v. Washington, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Treaty of Medicine Creek, which was signed in 1854 between the United States and the Native American tribes of the Puget Sound region. Justice Douglas argued that the majority opinion failed to recognize the importance of the treaty in protecting the rights of the Native American tribes. He argued that the treaty was a solemn agreement between the United States and the Native American tribes, and that it should be interpreted in a manner that respects the rights of the tribes. He argued that the majority opinion failed to recognize the importance of the treaty in protecting the rights of the Native American tribes, and that it should be interpreted in a manner that respects the rights of the tribes. He also argued that the majority opinion failed to recognize the fact that the treaty was a solemn agreement between the United States and the Native American tribes, and that it should be interpreted in a manner that respects the rights of the tribes. Finally, Justice Douglas argued that the majority opinion failed to recognize the fact that the treaty was a solemn agreement between the United States and the Native American tribes, and that it should be interpreted in a manner that respects the rights of the tribes.