In the case of Egan v. Hart, 1896, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Egan claimed that he had purchased the disputed property from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, Hart contested this claim arguing that he had acquired rights to the same property through preemption under federal law which allows individuals who settle on and improve public lands to purchase them before others can do so. The lower court ruled in favor of Hart but upon appeal by Egan; the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that there were discrepancies regarding whether or not Hart met all requirements for preemption such as residing on and improving said land for a certain period of time prior to his application for purchase. Thus, due to these uncertainties about compliance with preemption laws coupled with evidence supporting Egan's claim as purchaser from original owner; ownership was granted to him instead.

In the dissenting opinion for Egan v. Hart, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting wild game in Louisiana violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this clause guaranteed all citizens equal access to public resources, regardless of their state residency status. They contended that wildlife is a natural resource owned by no one but held in trust by each state for its residents and those of other states as well. Therefore, they reasoned, any law discriminating against out-of-state hunters should be struck down as unconstitutional because it infringes upon these shared rights without sufficient justification or compelling interest on part of the State.