In Stuart v. Easton (1897), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Kansas, involving conflicting claims under the Homestead Act and railroad grants. The plaintiff, Stuart, claimed that he had acquired rights to the land through settlement and improvements made under the Homestead Act before it was granted to any railroad company by Congress. On the other hand, defendant Easton argued that his claim was superior because it derived from a grant given to a railway company after Stuart's settlement but before his homesteading entry at Land Office. The court ruled in favor of Easton stating that while both parties' claims were valid within their respective legal frameworks; priority should be given to those who filed their claim first at Land Office as per existing law during this period which favored railroads over settlers for development purposes. This decision underscored how federal policy prioritized infrastructure development via private corporations like railroads over individual settlers during westward expansion era despite provisions meant to encourage individual settlement like Homestead Act.

In the dissenting opinion for Stuart v. Easton, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from practicing law within its borders violated both the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The dissent contended that these constitutional provisions were designed to ensure equal treatment under state laws for all citizens, regardless of their residency status. It further asserted that there was no compelling reason why non-resident attorneys should be treated differently than resident attorneys as long as they met all other qualifications required by the state bar association. Therefore, in this view, barring qualified out-of-state lawyers from practicing solely based on their residency constituted an unjustifiable discrimination against them.