In the case of Clason v. Matko, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court's decision could be reviewed by federal courts if it involved issues related to federal law. The dispute arose when Mr. Clason sued Mr. Matko for trespassing on his mining claim in California and won at trial court level but lost on appeal in the state supreme court which ruled that he had no valid claim under federal mining laws because he failed to perform annual labor as required by those laws. Clason then appealed to the U.S Supreme Court arguing that his rights under federal law were violated and thus should be reviewable by a higher authority than just a state supreme court. However, the U.S Supreme Court disagreed stating that while they have jurisdiction over cases involving interpretation of Federal statutes, this particular case did not involve any such issue since both parties agreed about what Federal statute said but only disputed its application to their specific facts. Therefore, there was no violation of any right secured by Federal law or Constitution hence no basis for invoking jurisdiction of US Supreme Court over decisions made purely based on State Law even though they may indirectly affect some rights derived from Federal Law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Clason v. Matko argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting or fishing without first obtaining a license was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed this law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S Constitution, which guarantees citizens in each state all privileges and immunities granted to citizens in other states. They contended that hunting and fishing were fundamental rights that should not be restricted by individual states based on residency status. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that such laws were necessary for conservation purposes, arguing instead these restrictions served primarily as revenue-generating measures rather than genuine efforts at wildlife preservation.