The clearest example of this not being a viable strategy is the removal of Cherokee communities from Georgia and other parts of the southern Appalachians in the early 19th Century, leading to the "Trail of Tears". Cherokee communities established treaty relations with the United States after the American Revolution, were engaging in settled agriculture, and pursued legal remedies for violent and extralegal attacks by whites moving into their lands (especially by prospectors looking for mineral strikes). Adam Pratt's 2020 book Toward Cherokee Removal is one of the most recent works to add to a considerable historiography on the history leading up to the Trail of Tears that details how Cherokee often sought judicial relief in both state and federal courts, to no avail. Most famously in the case of Worcester v. Georgia, where the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government was obliged to protect Cherokee land claims from state laws and white intrusion--a ruling that Georgia and other states ignored and that President Andrew Jackson infamously dismissed (Jackson may not have actually said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" but that was certainly an accurate description of his view.)

As Pratt points out, permitting white settlers to violently push out Cherokee communities (through destruction of their property, through physical threats, through murder or beatings) despite court rulings and treaties confirming Cherokee rights on land is broadly speaking something that happened many times in the westward expansion of European settlers across North America and that settler colonialism in general anywhere in the world is built on--a strategy of privileging Europeans over non-European on racial grounds that ignore or circumvent any supposed legal systems. It happened before the Cherokee removal in Pennsylvania, as historian Peter Silver points out in his book Our Savage Neighbors: as rival groups of Europeans came together around a shared desire to grab land from Native Americans in Pennsylvania, they repeatedly violated William Penn's treaty agreements and legal orders with impunity.

So we can be sure that the idea here wouldn't have worked because it was in fact frequently tried and often was successful in the sense of securing legal title or rights, to no real end. Favorable legal rulings or confirmation of land rights do nothing if there is no political will to enforce the ruling.

The only time you might argue that it has worked is in very recent American history, where existing Native American sovereignties have finally been able to enforce some land claims through the courts, most notably in the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma, where a 5-4 majority ruled that about half the state of Oklahoma actually lies within Native American reservation sovereignty. (There's already talk that the court is going to revisit the decision, and Gorsuch's majority decision asserted also that Congress could unilaterally change land rights in Oklahoma without negotiating with Native American leaders if it so chose.)