The Ortega v. Lara case in 1905 revolved around a dispute over land ownership in Texas between the heirs of José Antonio Navarro and Francisco Ortega, represented by his attorney-in-fact, Juan M. Lara. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not the lower courts had correctly interpreted Spanish law regarding property rights and inheritance to resolve this issue. Navarro's heirs claimed that they were entitled to the disputed land because it was part of an original grant given to their ancestor by Spain before Mexico gained independence. They argued that under Spanish law at the time, all unallocated lands within a municipal boundary automatically became public lands upon Mexico’s independence from Spain. Ortega countered this claim by arguing that he had purchased the disputed land from its rightful owners who inherited it through generations dating back to when Texas was still part of New Spain. After reviewing both arguments and examining historical documents related to Spanish colonial laws on property rights, as well as Mexican laws after gaining independence from Spain; The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ortega stating that there is no evidence supporting Navarro's claims about automatic conversion into public domain during changeover periods.

In the dissenting opinion for Ortega v. Lara, 1905, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Texas law prohibiting non-residents from gathering oysters in its waters violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this clause guaranteed all citizens certain fundamental rights, including engaging in common occupations such as oyster harvesting, regardless of their state residency status. They contended that while states have power to regulate natural resources within their borders for conservation purposes or public health reasons, they cannot discriminate against out-of-state residents purely on grounds of protectionism or economic favoritism towards local interests without violating constitutional principles.