In the case of Ward v. Race Horse in 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving hunting rights granted to Native American tribes by federal treaties. The Bannock tribe claimed that their treaty with the government allowed them to hunt on unoccupied lands of the United States without regard for state laws or regulations. However, when a tribal member named Race Horse was arrested in Wyoming for hunting out of season, he challenged his conviction based on this treaty right. The court held that while such rights may have existed at one point under certain treaties, they did not supersede state law and were not intended to be perpetual but rather temporary until new states could regulate such matters themselves. Therefore, it concluded that Wyoming's admission into Union had effectively ended any special hunting privileges previously enjoyed by the tribe.

In the dissenting opinion for Ward v. Race Horse, Justice White disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the hunting rights clause in an 1868 treaty between the U.S. government and Bannock Indians. He argued that these rights were not temporary or dependent on statehood but rather permanent until explicitly repealed by Congress. The justice contended that Wyoming's admission into the Union did not automatically nullify these treaty-guaranteed hunting privileges as suggested by his colleagues' ruling; instead, he believed it was necessary to prove a clear intention from Congress to abrogate such rights - something he found lacking in this case. Furthermore, Justice White criticized his peers for failing to consider historical context when interpreting treaties with Native American tribes and warned against adopting a narrow view of indigenous peoples' legal protections under federal law.