In the 1902 case of Geer v. Mathieson Alkali Works, the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether a state could regulate game animals within its borders and prohibit their transportation out of state for commercial purposes. The plaintiff, Geer, had sold game birds to Mathieson Alkali Works that were shot in Connecticut but intended for use in New York; this was against Connecticut law which prohibited exporting game outside of the state. The court ruled in favor of Connecticut's right to control wildlife within its borders as an exercise of police power and held that states have ownership over wildlife on behalf of their citizens until it is legally captured or killed by individual hunters or fishers. This decision established what became known as the "state ownership doctrine" regarding wildlife management.

In the dissenting opinion for Geer v. Mathieson Alkali Works, Justice Harlan argued that the state of Connecticut's law prohibiting the transportation of game birds out of state was unconstitutional. He contended that once a hunter legally obtained possession of game, it became his personal property and he should be able to do with it as he pleased, including transporting or selling it in another state. The majority opinion held that states had an inherent right to regulate wildlife because they owned all wild animals within their borders in trust for their citizens; however, Harlan disagreed with this interpretation and believed such regulation interfered with interstate commerce rights protected by federal law. He also expressed concern about potential abuses if states were given too much power over natural resources.