The Court incorporated that presumption into its analysis of the Treaty of Point Elliot, which was silent on the issue of tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's approach, which interpreted the treaty's silence in favor of tribal sovereignty and applied the "long-standing rule that legislation affecting the Indians is to be construed in their interest." Instead, the Court revived the doctrine of implicit divestiture. Citing "Johnson v. M'Intosh" and "Cherokee Nation v. Georgia", the Court considered criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians an example of the "inherent limitations on tribal powers that stem from their incorporation into the United States," similar to tribes' abrogated rights to alienate land.