In the Manchester v. Massachusetts case of 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts law that prohibited non-residents from fishing in its waters without permission. The plaintiff, a resident of New Hampshire who was fined for violating this law, argued that it violated his privileges and immunities as an American citizen under Article IV of the Constitution and also infringed upon Congress's power to regulate commerce among states under Article I. However, Justice Gray ruled on behalf of a unanimous court that neither argument held up because fishing is not considered a fundamental right protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause nor does it constitute interstate commerce subject to federal regulation. Instead, he reasoned that each state has sovereign authority over its natural resources unless explicitly limited by constitutional provisions or federal laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Manchester v. Massachusetts, it was argued that the state of Massachusetts did not have jurisdiction over fishing grounds located three miles off its coast. The justice believed that these waters were part of international territory and thus fell under federal jurisdiction, not state control. He contended that allowing states to regulate such areas could lead to conflicts between different states' laws and potentially even disputes with foreign nations whose ships might also fish in these waters. Furthermore, he asserted that this case had implications beyond just fishing rights; if a state could claim authority over offshore resources like fish, they might similarly try to assert control over other maritime matters such as navigation or trade routes which traditionally fall under federal purview. Therefore, he concluded that the majority's decision was an unwarranted expansion of state power at the expense of federal authority.