The consideration offered — continued food rations, which the government was already obligated to provide under the treaty — was not a fair price for the Hills.

The majority’s conclusion was unequivocal.

The 1877 act had not been a good faith effort to give the Indians fair value for the land.

It had been a taking of tribal property, implied a constitutional obligation to pay just compensation, and that obligation, with interest from 1877, remained owed.

The lone dissenter, Justice Rehnquist, objected that the majority had given insufficient deference to Congress’s historical decisions in managing Indian affairs.

He argued that the good faith determination required greater deference to the political branches and that the majority was second-guessing century-old congressional judgments in inappropriate ways.