In the case of Fugate v. New Mexico (1984), the U.S Supreme Court addressed an appeal from a defendant who was convicted for driving under the influence and vehicular homicide in New Mexico. The appellant, Fugate, argued that his constitutional rights were violated because he wasn't provided with counsel during his initial appearance before a magistrate judge where bail was set. He also contended that he should have been given access to an attorney prior to deciding whether or not to submit to a breathalyzer test after being arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, ruling that there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at preliminary hearings where only bail is determined and no pleas are entered or trials conducted. Furthermore, it held that since taking a breathalyzer test does not involve critical stages of prosecution requiring legal representation under Miranda rights, there's no need for police officers to inform suspects about their right to consult with attorneys before deciding whether or not they will take such tests.

In the dissenting opinion for Fugate v. New Mexico, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring non-resident commercial fishermen to pay higher fees than resident fishermen was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases. The dissenting justice contended that this ruling violated both the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against out-of-state residents without sufficient justification. They asserted that there were other less discriminatory means available for achieving legitimate state interests such as conservation or revenue generation, which should have been considered before upholding such a discriminatory statute. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s view about interstate commerce clause not being implicated in this case because fishing is not commerce but rather recreation activity according to them.