In the 1923 case of Lacoste et al. v. Department of Conservation of the State of Louisiana, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a state law that imposed taxes on wild animals and birds killed for commercial purposes within its borders. The plaintiffs, who were engaged in trapping muskrats for their fur, argued that this tax was an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce since most furs were sold out-of-state. However, the court held that while states cannot regulate or impede interstate commerce directly, they can impose non-discriminatory taxes on resources extracted within their boundaries as part of their inherent power to control and conserve local natural resources even if those goods are destined for out-of-state markets.

In the dissenting opinion for Lacoste et al. v. Department of Conservation of the State of Louisiana, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision was a violation of property rights protected by due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that while states have broad powers to regulate industries within their borders, they cannot arbitrarily interfere with private business or take property without compensation. The state’s action in this case amounted to an unconstitutional taking because it deprived oyster farmers from harvesting and selling oysters on their leased lands without providing any compensation in return. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that oyster cultivation is not agriculture but rather a form of fishing subject to state regulation; instead, he asserted that cultivating oysters involves significant labor and investment akin to farming other crops and should be treated as such under law.