In Sutton v. Leib, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Alaska. The petitioner, Sutton, claimed that he had acquired title to certain Alaskan lands through adverse possession - a doctrine allowing someone to acquire ownership of property by occupying it for an extended period without the owner's permission. However, the respondent (Leib) argued that this was not possible as the land in question was public domain under federal control and therefore immune from state laws on adverse possession. The court ruled in favor of Leib stating that while Alaska did have its own laws regarding adverse possession, these could not apply to federally-owned lands unless Congress explicitly allowed it. As there were no such provisions at the time of Sutton’s claim, his assertion of ownership via adverse possession was invalid. This case clarified that state law cannot override federal law when it comes to matters involving federally owned properties or public domains unless specifically permitted by Congress.

In the dissenting opinion for Sutton v. Leib, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in Lake Michigan was unconstitutional. He contended that such laws violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution which ensures citizens' privileges are recognized across states. Douglas believed this clause should protect an individual’s right to earn a livelihood in any state, including through commercial fishing. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that conservation justified discrimination against out-of-state fishermen as there were other ways to achieve conservation without infringing on constitutional rights.