In the 1895 case of Meyer v. Richards, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Meyer, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law. However, the defendant, Richards argued that he was entitled to this land because his predecessor-in-interest had received it as part of a Mexican Land Grant before California became part of United States territory and thus prior to any preemption laws being enacted by Congress. The court ruled in favor of Richards stating that when California was admitted into Union on equal footing with other states; its sovereignty extended over all lands within its borders including those granted by Mexico unless expressly withheld by terms in treaty or statute at time statehood is conferred.

In the dissenting opinion for Meyer v. Richards, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting game in Wyoming violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The dissenting justices contended that this clause guarantees citizens of each state equal access to all privileges and immunities offered by any other state, including hunting rights. They believed that Wyoming’s law unfairly discriminated against out-of-state residents by denying them a privilege freely available to its own citizens. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that wildlife is solely owned by states rather than being held in trust for their people; thus arguing such laws should not be used as tools for economic protectionism under guise of conservation efforts.