In the 1902 case of Reetz v. Michigan, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law that restricted commercial hunting and fishing to state residents only, barring non-residents from these activities unless they owned at least $200 worth of property in the state. The plaintiff, Charles Reetz, was a Wisconsin resident who argued that this law violated his privileges and immunities as an American citizen under Article IV of the Constitution. However, Justice Edward Douglass White wrote for a unanimous court that states have broad powers to regulate their natural resources as long as such regulations do not infringe upon fundamental rights or create absolute barriers to residency or commerce between states. Therefore, while Mr.Reetz had equal protection under federal laws regarding interstate trade and travel across state lines; he did not have any inherent right to hunt or fish commercially within another state's borders without meeting its requirements.

In the dissenting opinion for Reetz v. Michigan, it was argued that the state law in question, which restricted non-residents from hunting and fishing on public lands while allowing residents to do so freely, violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenters believed that this clause guaranteed all citizens equal access to common property like public lands regardless of their state of residence. They contended that such a discriminatory statute placed an undue burden on out-of-state individuals who wished to hunt or fish in Michigan's vast wilderness areas. Furthermore, they asserted that states did not have unlimited power over natural resources within their borders but were instead trustees for all American people under federal law.