In the 1968 case Fuller v. Alaska, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over fishing rights in Alaskan waters. The plaintiff, Mr. Fuller, was an Oregon resident who owned and operated commercial fishing vessels that he used to fish for king crab off the coast of Alaska. He challenged an Alaskan law which limited non-residents' access to its fisheries by imposing higher fees on them compared to residents of Alaska. The court ruled against Mr. Fuller stating that states have a right to conserve and maintain their natural resources for their citizens’ benefit under what is known as "the doctrine of state ownership". This principle allows states considerable leeway in managing natural resources within their borders including charging differential rates between residents and non-residents. However, it also emphasized that such regulations should not be arbitrary or discriminatory without reasonable grounds related directly with conservation objectives; otherwise they may violate privileges and immunities clause of Article IV or commerce clause of US constitution.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Fuller v. Alaska, 1968 argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring non-resident commercial fishermen to pay higher license fees than residents was unconstitutional. The dissent contended that this law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S Constitution which guarantees citizens in each state all privileges and immunities granted to citizens in other states. They believed that by imposing higher fees on non-residents, Alaska was unfairly discriminating against out-of-state fishermen and denying them equal protection under the laws as provided for by Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s view that such discrimination could be justified based on residency status or because it served a substantial state interest like conservation efforts or revenue generation for local services benefiting fisheries industry.