In the 1972 case Tacon v. Arizona, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state could require non-residents to pay higher fees than residents for hunting licenses. The petitioner, a California resident and avid hunter, argued that this policy violated his constitutional rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, in an unsigned opinion (per curiam), the court upheld Arizona's law requiring nonresidents to pay more for big game hunting licenses than residents do. The court ruled that there is no fundamental right involved in recreational hunting which would trigger strict scrutiny under equal protection analysis; therefore states can discriminate against non-residents as long as they have rational basis for doing so - here it was preserving wildlife resources for its own citizens.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Tacon v. Arizona argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring mandatory life imprisonment without parole for certain drug offenses was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed this punishment was excessive and violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. They contended that while states have broad discretion in determining penalties for crimes, there are constitutional limits on their power to impose harsh sentences, especially when they are disproportionate to the crime committed. In this case, they felt that a lifetime sentence without any possibility of parole was too severe for non-violent drug offenses which did not involve death or serious bodily harm. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies with other rulings where far more serious crimes had lesser sentences imposed upon them.