In the 1921 case of Hurley v. Commission of Fisheries of Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hurley, a Maryland resident who was charged higher fees than Virginia residents for oyster dredging licenses by the state's fisheries commission. The court found that this practice violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution which prohibit states from discriminating against citizens from other states without substantial reason. The decision established that non-residents should not be subjected to discriminatory practices or charges based on their residency status unless there is a compelling state interest at stake.

The dissenting opinion in the Hurley v. Commission of Fisheries of Virginia case argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which should not be used to invalidate state laws regulating local industries or resources. The dissent emphasized that states have always had authority over their own natural resources, including fisheries within their borders. They believed this power is necessary for states to manage these resources effectively and ensure they are not depleted by non-residents who do not share an equal interest in conservation efforts. Furthermore, they pointed out that if every citizen has an equal right to each state’s resources under the Privileges and Immunities Clause as interpreted by the majority, it would lead to absurd results such as allowing all citizens access to any public lands or buildings across all states without restrictions imposed by individual states.