Hacker News Reader

It seems that what they've ruled is not that the treaty must be honored, but that only the federal government gets to decide not to honor it. Absent a specific decision to that effect, the treaty is still in force which limits the state's authority.

They're not saying the treaty must be honored. They're saying, unlike the many other treaties that were explicitly invalidated by laws passed, these ones were never really directly addressed so they must de facto still stand.

Also, no where near 50% of the US was ever granted in treaties. The vast majority was simply taken militarily without compromise.

I think this had more to do with the specifics of this specific land and how things played out legally. I'm not sure these circumstances apply anywhere else.

This doesn't answer your question directly but its fascinating [1]

[1] https://www.whose.land/en/