In the 1906 case of Love v. Flahive, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Love, claimed that he had purchased a plot of land from an individual who had received it as part of an allotment under the Dawes Act - legislation which granted parcels of land to Native Americans in an attempt to encourage assimilation into American society. However, this act also stipulated that such lands could not be sold or transferred for twenty-five years after their initial allocation. The defendant, Flahive, argued that because this condition was violated when Love acquired his property (as less than twenty-five years had passed), his claim to ownership was invalid and should therefore be dismissed by the court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Flahive on these grounds; they held that any sale or transfer made within this restricted period would indeed be considered void according to federal law. As such, they concluded that Love's purchase did not grant him legal rights over the disputed territory.

In the dissenting opinion for Love v. Flahive, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law requiring non-resident hunters to pay higher fees than residents violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this clause guaranteed equal treatment under state laws for all citizens, regardless of their residency status. They contended that hunting is not merely a privilege granted by individual states but rather an inherent right enjoyed by all American citizens equally, thus making any discriminatory fee structure unconstitutional in their view.