In the case of State of Wisconsin v. Lane, Secretary of the Interior in 1917, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a federal law that allowed for land previously granted to Wisconsin for railroad purposes could be reclaimed by Native American tribes if it had not been used within a certain timeframe. The state argued that this violated their rights and constituted an illegal taking without compensation. However, the court ruled against Wisconsin stating that when Congress initially gave them these lands, they did so with conditions attached - one being its use for railroads within a specified period. Since those conditions were not met by Wisconsin, Congress was justified in reclaiming and reassigning those lands as per original stipulations under tribal treaties.

In the dissenting opinion for State of Wisconsin v. Lane, Secretary of the Interior, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision that federal jurisdiction over tribal lands superseded state rights. He argued that when Wisconsin became a state, it gained sovereignty over all land within its borders unless explicitly stated otherwise by Congress. The Menominee tribe had been granted reservation land but not sovereign control; therefore, their hunting and fishing rights were subject to regulation by the state just like any other resident or group in Wisconsin. Furthermore, he contended that even if there was ambiguity about whether these specific treaty rights fell under federal or state jurisdiction - which he did not believe there was - precedent dictated deference to states' rights in such cases. Thus, according to Justice Holmes' interpretation of law and history, Wisconsin should have retained authority over natural resources on Menominee tribal lands.