The U.S. Supreme Court case Fee v. Brown in 1895 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the interpretation of the Homestead Act of 1862, which allowed qualified individuals to claim up to 160 acres of federally owned land for free if they improved it by building a dwelling and growing crops. The plaintiff, Fee, claimed that he had fulfilled these requirements on a piece of property in Oregon and was therefore entitled to legal title under the act. However, his claim was contested by Brown who argued that Fee's improvements were insufficient as per law standards. The court ruled against Fee stating that although he built a cabin on the property and cultivated some portion of it; however, his efforts did not meet the "improvement" standard set forth in the Homestead Act because he failed to establish permanent residence there or make substantial agricultural use out of it as required by law. This decision clarified what constituted sufficient improvement under this legislation - mere construction or cultivation wasn't enough but rather continuous habitation along with significant farming activities were necessary conditions for claiming ownership rights over federal lands through homesteading.

In the dissenting opinion for Fee v. Brown, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting game was unconstitutional. He believed it violated both the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. According to him, these constitutional provisions guarantee all citizens equal rights under any state laws regardless of their residency status. He contended that while states have authority over wildlife within their borders, they cannot discriminate against out-of-state residents in terms of access or use because such discrimination is not necessary for conservation purposes. Furthermore, he suggested that if every state adopted similar discriminatory practices towards non-residents, it would lead to an undesirable fragmentation among states contrary to national unity principles embedded in constitution.