In the 1902 U.S. Supreme Court case Sawyer v. Piper, the dispute centered around a land grant in Minnesota given by Congress to aid in building railroads. The plaintiff, Sawyer, had purchased part of this land from St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company (the original recipient of the grant), while defendant Piper claimed ownership based on a subsequent state law that aimed to tax and sell railroad lands not yet fully paid for by their purchasers. The court ruled in favor of Sawyer, stating that once federal legislation has granted lands for specific purposes such as aiding railroads' construction, states cannot interfere with these grants or alter their terms through taxation laws or otherwise - even if those lands are sold to third parties like Sawyer before being fully paid off. This decision reinforced principles regarding supremacy of federal over state law when it comes to matters involving public domain disposal and highlighted how Congressional intent should be respected concerning federally-granted properties.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sawyer v. Piper argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in its waters was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed this law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, which states that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." They contended that this clause should protect an individual's right to fish regardless of their residency status. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation that such laws were necessary for conservation purposes, arguing instead these restrictions served primarily as economic protectionism for local fishermen at expense of out-of-state ones. Thus, they concluded it is not within a State’s power to discriminate against non-residents by denying them access or imposing additional burdens on them when it comes to common resources like fishing grounds.