In the case of Carlson v. State of Washington, on the Relation of Curtiss (1913), the U.S Supreme Court was asked to review a decision by the state court that had ruled in favor of Mr. Curtiss, who claimed he was entitled to certain lands under an 1855 treaty between Native American tribes and the United States government. The land in question had been granted to a member of one such tribe but later sold it to Mr. Carlson's predecessor-in-interest without federal approval as required by law at that time for sales involving tribal lands. The Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence showing Congress' intent or any statutory provision allowing private individuals like Mr.Carlson or his predecessors-in-interests to challenge these transactions, they lacked standing before courts regarding this matter; only federal authorities could do so if they deemed necessary. Therefore, even though technically illegal due lack federal approval when initially sold off from its original tribal owner, title remained with current possessor -Mr.Curtiss- because neither previous nor current non-Native owners were legally empowered challenge validity those transfers themselves.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Carlson v. State of Washington, on the relation of Curtiss, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in its waters was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed that this law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S Constitution which states: "the citizens each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in several states." They contended that fishing is a common right for every citizen regardless their residency status. Therefore, they disagreed with majority’s view about upholding such laws as it discriminates against non-residents by denying them access to public resources available within any given state.