In the case of Flink v. Paladini et al., 1928, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendant Paladini, a California fisherman who was charged with violating federal law by catching and selling sardines within state waters without a federal license. The court held that while Congress has power over interstate commerce, it does not have authority to regulate fishing within state boundaries unless such activities significantly affect interstate commerce or foreign relations. In this instance, there was no evidence presented that Paladini's actions had any substantial effect on either area; therefore he could not be federally prosecuted for his actions. This ruling reinforced states' rights under the Constitution and clarified limits on Congressional powers related to intrastate commercial activities.

In the dissenting opinion for FLINK v. PALADINI et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and federal law regarding interstate commerce. He believed that California, as a state, had no jurisdiction over fishing rights in open waters because they were not within its territorial limits. Therefore, he contended that it could not regulate or limit non-residents from fishing in these areas under the guise of conservation efforts without violating their constitutional right to equal protection under the laws. Furthermore, he asserted that such regulations also violated federal law governing interstate commerce by unfairly restricting out-of-state fishermen's access to markets within California.