In the case of Martin v. Snyder in 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that imposed taxes on commercial vehicles traveling through its jurisdiction violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The plaintiff, Martin, argued that his business operations were unfairly taxed by multiple states as he transported goods across state lines. He contended this constituted an undue burden on interstate commerce and thus infringed upon federal powers to regulate such trade under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (the Commerce Clause). However, after careful consideration, the court ruled against him stating that while Congress has exclusive authority over interstate commerce regulation; it does not prevent a state from exercising its power to tax businesses operating within their boundaries for services rendered or protection provided by them even if they are involved in interstate commerce activities.

In the dissenting opinion for Martin v. Snyder, 1892, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting or fishing on their own private property violated both due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that this law unfairly discriminated against out-of-state landowners by denying them rights enjoyed by in-state residents without any rational basis for such discrimination. They also contended that this restriction infringed upon an individual’s right to use his/her property as he/she sees fit – a fundamental aspect of property ownership protected by due process clause of the Constitution. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's view about states' power over wildlife within its borders being absolute and unchallengeable; instead they opined that while states do have considerable authority in managing wildlife resources, it does not extend to infringing upon constitutional rights of individuals.