In the case of Montana v. Hall, 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state could impose its income tax on retirement benefits received by a former state employee who had moved out of state after retiring. The petitioner in this case was the State of Montana and respondent was Robert E. Hall, a retired highway patrol officer from Montana living in Arizona at that time. The court ruled against Montana stating that it violated both due process and interstate commerce clauses by imposing an income tax on pension benefits paid to non-residents while exempting similar payments made to residents under its individual income tax laws. This decision set an important precedent regarding taxation rights over retirees' incomes when they move across states post-retirement.

In the dissenting opinion for Montana v. Hall, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting elk while allowing residents to do so violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The dissenters believed this clause should protect citizens in one state against discrimination by other states, including discriminatory hunting regulations. They contended that Montana had not provided sufficient justification for its differential treatment of resident and non-resident hunters, as required under Supreme Court precedent when a state law discriminates against out-of-state citizens. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that recreational hunting is not sufficiently basic to qualify for protection under this clause; instead arguing that such activities are part of an individual’s livelihood or well-being which should be protected from unreasonable restrictions imposed by another State.