In the case of Brazee v. People of the State of Michigan, 1915, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to review a decision by a lower court in which Mr. Brazee had been convicted for violating state game laws by using certain types of nets to catch fish. The defendant argued that these laws were unconstitutional as they violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights due to their discriminatory nature against non-residents and because they deprived him of his property without due process or equal protection under law. However, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction stating that states have inherent power over wildlife within their borders and can regulate hunting and fishing activities accordingly. They further clarified that such regulations do not violate any constitutional rights if they are reasonable and designed for conservation purposes rather than discrimination.

In the dissenting opinion for Brazee v. People of the State of Michigan, it was argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to an unfair trial process. The main point of contention revolved around a confession made by Brazee while in police custody, which was used as evidence against him during his trial. The dissenting justices believed this confession should have been excluded from evidence because it was obtained under duress and without proper legal counsel present, thus violating Brazee's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to legal representation. They also criticized the majority decision for not considering these constitutional violations when upholding Brazee’s conviction on appeal.