In the 1908 case of Fitchie v. Brown, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that required railroad companies to install safety appliances on their trains violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution by interfering with interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Fitchie, argued that as an employee of a railway company engaged in both intrastate and interstate commerce, he should be protected under federal laws mandating certain safety measures for railroads involved in interstate trade. However, his employer had not installed these devices because they were only mandated by Illinois state law and not federal legislation. The court ruled against Fitchie stating that states have authority over local matters such as this one unless Congress has enacted legislation addressing it specifically or there is direct conflict between state and federal laws which did not exist here. Therefore, even though some aspects of railway operation are subject to regulation at both levels due to its nature as an industry affecting multiple states (interstate), other parts can still fall under individual states' jurisdiction if they do not directly interfere with cross-border trade.

In the dissenting opinion for Fitchie v. Brown, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in Louisiana waters violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this clause guaranteed citizens of each state equal access to all privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens in other states, including commercial activities such as fishing. They contended that while states have rights to regulate their natural resources, these regulations should not discriminate against out-of-state residents or interfere with interstate commerce. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation which allowed for discriminatory laws under guise of conservation efforts.