In the case of Giozza v. Tiernan, a dispute arose over oyster fishing rights in Louisiana waters. The plaintiff, Giozza, claimed that he had been granted exclusive rights to fish for oysters in certain areas by the state of Louisiana and sought an injunction against Tiernan who was also fishing there. However, the defendant argued that these exclusive privileges violated both federal law and the Constitution as they interfered with interstate commerce and denied equal protection under the laws. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tiernan stating that while states have control over their own natural resources including fisheries within their borders, this power is not absolute or without limits imposed by other constitutional provisions such as those protecting interstate commerce or providing for equal protection under law.

In the dissenting opinion for Giozza v. Tiernan, Justice Brewer argued that the city of Memphis had a contractual obligation to pay back bonds issued by it and purchased in good faith by investors. He disagreed with the majority's view that these obligations could be nullified due to irregularities in their issuance or because they exceeded statutory limits on municipal debt. According to him, such an interpretation would undermine public confidence in government securities and harm innocent bondholders who relied on municipalities' promises of repayment. Furthermore, he contended that even if some officials acted improperly when issuing these bonds, this should not absolve the city from its duty towards those who bought them without knowledge of any wrongdoing.