 The case has been cited in over 300 law review articles as of October 2013 . A consistent point made in numerous articles is that while Congress may terminate tribal and treaty rights , it must show a " specific intent to abrogate them " . It is repeatedly cited by cases and law reviews to show that the court will construe laws and treaties , where ambiguous , in favor of the tribes . Judges and legal experts have noted that hunting and fishing rights are valuable property rights , and if the government takes away those rights it must compensate those who hold the rights for their loss . Courts must also construe treaty rights and statutes liberally in favor of the Indians , even when the treaty does not specifically speak of hunting and fishing . 
