In the 1907 case of Scully v. Bird, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Scully, had leased land from an Indian tribe under federal supervision and later purchased it when Congress authorized its sale. However, Bird claimed that he was entitled to the property because he had occupied it before Congress approved its sale and argued that his occupancy rights were protected by local law. The court ruled in favor of Scully on grounds that federal law superseded state law regarding Native American lands. It held that since Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over Indian affairs including their lands' disposition, any claim based on local or common laws is invalid if inconsistent with Congressional action or intent.

In the dissenting opinion for Scully v. Bird, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New Jersey law prohibiting non-residents from hunting or killing game within its borders violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this clause guaranteed citizens of each state all privileges and immunities granted to citizens in other states, including hunting rights. They contended that while states have power over their natural resources, they cannot discriminate against non-residents by denying them access to these resources under equal terms as residents. Therefore, they disagreed with upholding a law which they saw as discriminatory towards out-of-state hunters.