In the case of Gulf Fisheries Company v. MacInerney, 1927, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between a fishing company and an individual over oyster beds in Texas waters. The Gulf Fisheries Company had leased these beds from the state of Texas but John A. MacInerney claimed that he owned them due to Spanish land grants predating Texas's admission into the Union. The court held that when Texas joined the United States, it retained ownership of its submerged lands and could therefore lease them as it saw fit. Therefore, even if MacInerney's claim was valid under Spanish law at one time, his rights were superseded by those of Texas upon its entry into statehood. Consequently, any leases granted by the State - such as those given to Gulf Fisheries - took precedence over previous claims or grants.

The dissenting opinion in the Gulf Fisheries Company v. MacInerney case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Massachusetts law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in its waters was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed this violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S Constitution which prevents states from discriminating against citizens of other states. They contended that commercial fishing is a fundamental right protected by this clause and should be accessible to all American citizens regardless of their state residency status. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation that these laws were necessary for conservation purposes as there was no evidence presented proving such necessity or showing how banning out-of-state fishermen would help conserve fish populations more effectively than other less discriminatory measures could have done.