In the case of Arnold et al. v. North Carolina in 1963, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to address a dispute over fishing rights. The plaintiffs were commercial fishermen who used large nets that had been banned by state law due to concerns about overfishing and conservation efforts for certain fish species. The fishermen argued that this ban violated their equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because it allowed other types of fishing gear but not theirs, which they claimed was discriminatory and arbitrary without any rational basis or relation to its stated purpose. The Supreme Court disagreed with these arguments and upheld the validity of North Carolina's net-banning laws as a legitimate exercise of its police power aimed at protecting natural resources within its jurisdiction from depletion or destruction due to excessive exploitation by commercial interests using such destructive methods. It found no violation of equal protection principles since all persons similarly situated (i.e., those engaged in commercial fishing) were treated alike under these regulations regardless of what type(s) equipment they used; hence there was no discrimination involved here against any particular group based on irrational or irrelevant considerations.

In the dissenting opinion for Arnold et al. v. North Carolina, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing unregulated beachcombing violated property rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling effectively allowed trespassers to invade private property without consequence, undermining established principles of ownership and possession. They contended that while public access to beaches is important, it should not supersede individual property rights without just compensation or due process as required under constitutional law.