In the case of McNaughton v. Johnson, Governor of the State of California et al., 1916, plaintiff John McNaughton filed a suit against Hiram W. Johnson, then governor of California and other state officials for allegedly violating his constitutional rights by enforcing an unconstitutional statute that prohibited non-residents from fishing in Lake Tahoe without a license. The Supreme Court ruled against McNaughton stating that he did not have sufficient grounds to bring forth such a claim as he had not been harmed or threatened with harm due to this law. Furthermore, it was noted that even if there were potential damages involved in future enforcement actions under this law, they would be speculative at best and thus insufficient to establish standing before the court.

The dissenting opinion in the case of McNaughton v. Johnson, Governor of the State of California, et al., 1916 is not readily available. The details regarding this specific Supreme Court case are scarce and do not provide enough information to summarize a dissenting opinion accurately. It's important to note that not all cases have published opinions or dissents, especially if they were decided without full argument or if they did not result in significant changes to legal interpretations or precedents.