In the case of Manuel v. Wulff in 1893, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Missouri law that prohibited physicians from performing abortions unless necessary to save a woman's life violated constitutional rights. The plaintiffs, two doctors who performed abortions, argued that this law infringed upon their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and equal protection under the law. They also claimed it violated women’s privacy rights protected by the Ninth Amendment and liberty interests safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled against them on all counts. It held that states have an interest in protecting unborn children and can regulate or even prohibit abortion except where necessary to preserve a mother's life or health. This decision upheld Missouri’s restrictive abortion laws until they were later overturned by Roe v Wade in 1973 which recognized women's constitutional right to choose abortion.

In the dissenting opinion for Manuel v. Wulff, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Missouri statute prohibiting non-resident commercial fishing in its waters violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The dissent contended that this clause guarantees citizens of each state equal access to all privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens in other states, including economic pursuits such as commercial fishing. They believed that while states have rights over their natural resources, these rights should not be used to discriminate against out-of-state residents who wish to engage in lawful occupations within their borders. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that conservation justified discrimination against non-residents; instead arguing there were less restrictive means available for resource management without infringing on constitutional protections.