In the case of Snyder v. Fiedler in 1890, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Wisconsin law that imposed taxes on express companies operating within its borders violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The plaintiff, an agent for several out-of-state express companies, argued that his businesses were engaged in interstate commerce and thus should be exempt from state taxation under federal law. However, Justice Samuel Blatchford ruled against him stating that while states cannot tax goods being transported across their territory or charge fees for passage through them (as this would interfere with interstate commerce), they can impose general property taxes on businesses operating within their boundaries even if those businesses are involved in interstate trade. Therefore, it was concluded that Wisconsin's tax did not violate any constitutional provisions as it didn't directly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce but merely taxed property located within its jurisdiction.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Snyder v. Fiedler argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting non-residents from hunting or fishing within a state, except on their own property, was unconstitutional. The dissent believed this law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminated against citizens based on their residency status. They contended that these constitutional provisions guarantee equal treatment under the law for all U.S citizens regardless of where they live. Therefore, according to them, states cannot enact laws that favor its residents over non-residents in matters concerning common livelihood or fundamental rights such as hunting and fishing which are traditionally seen as privileges open to every citizen.