It has been suggested that the interpretation of the requirements of proof applied in Yorta Yorta v Victoria may lead to discriminatory differentiation between one group of Indigenous people and another based on what are considered appropriately ‘traditional’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander societies. This is particularly pertinent for Indigenous peoples of the more settled regions of Australia. Lisa Strelein discusses how the High Court, by relying on the act of state doctrine, has attempted to disavow any continuing authority within Indigenous societies capable of recognition by the courts once native title has come into existence. Strelein examines how the majority and dissenting judgments in Yorta Yorta have interpreted the role of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), and the developing body of common law Native Title. Strelein concludes that the High Court’s decision in Yorta Yorta confirms that the legal outcomes of Native Title continue to become more and more elusive.