The Supreme Court case of Winters v. Ethell was a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Montana. The dispute arose when the defendant, Ethell, purchased the land from the United States government in 1883. The plaintiff, Winters, claimed that he had been granted the land by the United States government in 1868, and that Ethell had no right to purchase it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Winters, finding that the United States government had granted him the land in 1868, and that Ethell had no right to purchase it. The Court held that the United States government had granted Winters the right to use the land for agricultural purposes, and that this right was not extinguished by Ethell's purchase. The Court also held that the United States government had not granted Ethell the right to purchase the land, and that Ethell had no right to do so. The Court's decision in Winters v. Ethell established the principle of "reserved water rights," which states that the United States government has the right to reserve water rights for the benefit of Native American tribes. This principle has been used in numerous cases since then, and has been instrumental in protecting the rights of Native American tribes.

In the dissenting opinion of Winters v. Ethell, Justice Scalia argued that Congress had not intended to grant Indian tribes exclusive rights over water resources when it passed the Winters Doctrine in 1908. He noted that while Congress did recognize a priority right for Indians to use certain waters, this was only meant as an accommodation and not a guarantee of exclusive rights. Furthermore, he argued that even if such an intent could be inferred from the language of the statute itself, it would still be unconstitutional because it would amount to taking private property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. In conclusion, Justice Scalia believed that granting Indian tribes exclusive control over water resources was beyond what Congress had authorized and thus should have been struck down by majority decision instead of being upheld as constitutional law.