In the case of Butler v. Frazee, a dispute arose over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Butler, claimed that he had purchased the property from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights - a legal principle allowing individuals to acquire public land before it was offered for sale publicly. However, the defendant Frazee argued that this person did not have valid preemption rights because they were non-resident aliens at the time of acquisition and thus ineligible under federal law to claim such rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Frazee stating that only U.S citizens or those who declared their intention to become citizens could exercise preemption rights on public lands according to existing laws during that period (1862-1891). Therefore, as per court's decision any subsequent transfer of title by ineligible parties would also be invalid making Butler's claim void.

In the dissenting opinion for Butler v. Frazee, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting game birds and exporting them out of state was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this law violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress exclusive power over interstate commerce. They contended that once game birds were killed and prepared for market, they became articles of commerce subject to federal regulation rather than state control. Therefore, states could not prohibit their exportation or discriminate against non-residents in this regard without infringing upon federal authority over interstate trade.