In the case of United States v. Wildcat, a minor, et al., 1916, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether certain lands in Oklahoma were allotted to Native Americans under an agreement with the Cherokee Nation or if they were public lands that could be sold by the government. The court ruled that these lands had been set aside for allotment under an agreement between Congress and the Cherokee Nation in 1902 and therefore belonged to individual members of this tribe rather than being public land available for sale by the federal government. This decision upheld previous rulings from lower courts which stated that once land has been allotted to a tribal member it cannot be taken away without their consent even if it is not currently occupied or used.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Wildcat case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction for selling alcohol to Native Americans was flawed. The dissenters believed that the law, which made it illegal to sell liquor to "Indians," did not apply because Wildcat and his companions were members of a tribe recognized as citizens by Congress. They contended that once Congress granted citizenship, all discriminatory laws based on race or previous condition should cease having effect. Therefore, they saw this application of the law as an unjustifiable discrimination against American citizens solely based on their racial origin or former status - something contrary to principles of equality under U.S Constitution.