In the case of Carr v. Fife in 1894, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mining rights in Colorado. The plaintiff, Carr, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through preemption under federal law before they were included within a mineral land grant made by Congress to defendant Fife's predecessor-in-interest (the Union Pacific Railroad). However, the court found no evidence supporting this claim and held that even if such evidence existed it would not affect the validity of Fife's title since his predecessor-in-interest had received its patent from the government after due proceedings for determination of mineral or non-mineral character of these lands. Therefore, any preemptive right asserted by Carr could only be against United States but not against an innocent purchaser like Fife who relied upon government’s patent as conclusive proof of his title.

In the dissenting opinion for Carr v. Fife, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in Washington waters violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenting justices contended that this clause guarantees citizens of each state equal access to all privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens in other states, including natural resources like fish stocks. They believed that Washington State had no right to monopolize these resources exclusively for its own residents at the expense of out-of-state fishermen who were equally entitled under federal law to share in their bounty. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that protecting local fisheries justified such discrimination against non-residents; instead, they maintained that any conservation measures should apply uniformly regardless of residency status.