In the case of State of Iowa v. Slimmer et al., 1918, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that prohibited non-residents from hunting wild game violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The defendants, residents of Missouri, were charged with illegally hunting in Iowa without a license. They argued that they had been denied their constitutional rights because they were not allowed to hunt while residents could do so freely. The court ruled against them stating that states have an inherent right to regulate wildlife within their borders as part of their police power and can therefore impose restrictions on non-residents if it is deemed necessary for conservation purposes or public safety reasons. This ruling established important precedent regarding states' rights over natural resources within their boundaries.

The dissenting opinion in the case of State of Iowa v. Slimmer et al., 1918, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting private teaching of any subject in any language other than English was an overreach and infringement on personal liberties. The dissent contended that this ruling violated both freedom of speech and individual rights to educate one’s children as they see fit. It emphasized that while states have broad powers under their police power, these powers should not extend so far as to infringe upon fundamental freedoms protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, it questioned whether such a restriction could actually serve its purported purpose – promoting assimilation into American society – arguing instead that it might foster resentment and resistance among immigrant communities rather than encouraging integration.