In the 1914 case of Pigeon v. Buck, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership on an Indian reservation in Wisconsin. The plaintiff, Pigeon, was a member of the Oneida Tribe and claimed that he had been granted a tract of land by his tribe which was later improperly sold to Buck by tribal leaders without his consent or proper compensation. The court ruled against Pigeon stating that under federal law at that time, Native American tribes held their lands "in common" - meaning they were owned collectively rather than individually - and thus tribal leadership had authority to sell communal lands as they saw fit. Furthermore, it stated individual members did not have standing to challenge such sales in court unless Congress specifically provided them with this right.

In the dissenting opinion for Pigeon v. Buck, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting wild game violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this clause guarantees citizens of each state all privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens in other states, including hunting rights on public lands. They contended that while states have authority over their natural resources, they cannot discriminate against out-of-state residents regarding access to these resources without just cause or reason related directly to conservation efforts. In conclusion, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation which allowed for such discrimination based solely on residency status.