In the case of Johns v. Wilson, 1900, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Johns, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who held title to it under Mexican law prior to California's admission as a state. However, the defendant, Wilson and others argued they were rightful owners due to their purchase of said property at public auction after it was seized for non-payment of taxes by its previous owner (the same person who sold it to Johns). The court ruled in favor of Wilson and his co-defendants stating that even though there might have been irregularities with how tax sale was conducted or notice given thereof; these did not invalidate subsequent transfers made on basis thereof unless such irregularities amounted to denial of due process which wasn't proven here by plaintiff.

The dissenting opinion in Johns v. Wilson argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law prohibiting non-residents from hunting or fishing on private lands, even with the owner's permission, was inconsistent with previous rulings and infringed upon individual rights. The dissent contended that this law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution by discriminating against out-of-state citizens. They believed it unjustly restricted their right to earn a livelihood and enjoy recreational activities, which should be protected under equal protection principles. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of what constituted ‘privileges’ and ‘immunities,’ arguing for a broader understanding encompassing more than just political rights but also fundamental personal liberties.