In the 1918 case of Carey v. State of South Dakota, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota, upholding a state law that prohibited non-residents from hunting game for commercial purposes within its borders. The plaintiff, Carey, was an Illinois resident who argued that this law violated his privileges and immunities as a U.S. citizen under Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution which states: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." However, Justice Mahlon Pitney delivered the opinion for a unanimous court stating that while this clause does protect certain fundamental rights (such as access to courts), it does not guarantee all rights are universally applicable across state lines - including commercial hunting rights. Therefore, they concluded that South Dakota's law did not violate constitutional protections.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Carey v. State of South Dakota argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting game for five years after moving into the state was unconstitutional. The dissent contended that this law violated both the Privileges and Immunities Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it discriminated against new residents based on their status as newcomers. They believed that such discrimination was not justified by any compelling state interest, arguing instead that all citizens should have equal access to natural resources regardless of how long they had resided in a particular location. Moreover, they asserted that while states do have rights to regulate hunting within their borders for conservation purposes, these regulations must be applied equally among all citizens without arbitrary distinctions or unfair treatment towards certain groups.