In the case of Pueblo of Zia v. United States in 1897, the Supreme Court ruled on a land dispute between the Pueblo tribe and non-Indigenous settlers. The court held that under Spanish law, which was applicable at the time when New Mexico became part of U.S territory following Mexican-American War, Indigenous tribes had only possessory rights to their lands but did not hold title to them. Therefore, they could be dispossessed by grants from sovereign authority (the Crown). This ruling effectively meant that any land granted by Spain or Mexico within what is now New Mexico could potentially override indigenous claims if such grant can be proven validly issued and accepted according to laws then in effect.

In the dissenting opinion for Zia, Pueblo of v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to properly consider the unique status of Native American tribes under U.S law. He contended that these tribes were not simply private landowners but sovereign entities whose lands were protected by treaties and federal statutes. Therefore, he believed it was inappropriate to apply standard property law principles in this case as it involved a dispute over water rights between a tribe and non-Indian settlers. Furthermore, Justice Brewer disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Spanish colonial laws which they used to justify their ruling against the tribe’s claim on Rio Jemez river water rights; instead he asserted that those laws recognized Indian tribal ownership over such resources within their territories.