In the case of Leonard & Leonard, Co-Partners v. Earle, Conservation Commissioner of Maryland in 1928, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over oyster harvesting rights in Chesapeake Bay. The Leonards claimed that a Maryland law requiring them to pay a tax for every bushel of oysters they harvested was unconstitutional because it violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving them of property without due process and denying them equal protection under the laws. They argued that since they were operating on waters not within any state's jurisdiction but rather federal territory, Maryland had no right to impose such taxes. However, the court disagreed with this argument stating that while states cannot interfere with navigation or other federal interests on navigable waters within their borders; they can regulate fishing and impose taxes related thereto as long as these do not conflict with national legislation or treaties. Therefore, it upheld Maryland’s taxation scheme ruling it did not violate either clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Leonard & Leonard, Co-Partners v. Earle, Conservation Commissioner of Maryland (1928), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justices Louis Brandeis and Harlan Fiske Stone, disagreed with the majority's ruling that a state tax on oysters taken from public waters was unconstitutional. The dissent argued that such a tax did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was within Maryland's rights to regulate its natural resources as part of its police power. They contended that this taxation could be seen as rent or payment for use of state property rather than an infringement upon interstate commerce or private property rights. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled previously and suggested there should be more uniformity in rulings regarding states' abilities to manage their own resources.