The U.S. Supreme Court case Hicklin et al. v. Orbeck, Commissioner, Department of Labor of Alaska, et al., 1977 revolved around the constitutionality of an Alaskan statute that required all oil and gas leases, easements or right-of-way permits to include a provision giving residents preference for employment on such projects (the "Alaska Hire" law). The court ruled in favor of Hicklin and other non-resident workers who challenged this law as discriminatory against interstate commerce and violating their privileges and immunities as U.S citizens under Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that while states have significant authority to regulate local aspects within their jurisdiction including natural resources development, they cannot use these powers to burden interstate commerce or discriminate against out-of-state citizens without sufficient justification which was not provided by Alaska in this instance.

In the dissenting opinion for Hicklin et al. v. Orbeck, Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to strike down an Alaskan statute that prioritized hiring of state residents for oil and gas jobs on leased lands within Alaska. He argued that this case was not about discrimination against non-residents but rather a dispute over who should benefit from resources found in Alaska - its citizens or outsiders? He believed it was reasonable for a state to prioritize its own citizens when distributing benefits derived from local natural resources, especially considering these resources were finite and their extraction could have environmental consequences. Furthermore, he pointed out that other states had similar laws favoring their own residents without facing constitutional challenges. Therefore, he felt the court’s ruling went beyond what was necessary to protect interstate commerce and infringed upon states’ rights.