In the 1947 case of Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a California law prohibiting anyone "ineligible to citizenship" from obtaining a commercial fishing license was unconstitutional. The law effectively targeted Japanese immigrants who were barred from becoming citizens due to federal laws at the time. Aki Takahashi, a Japanese immigrant living in California, challenged this after his application for a renewal of his fishing license was denied under this state law. The court held that while states have power over their natural resources, they cannot use it as an instrument for discrimination against non-citizens or infringe upon rights protected by federal treaty or statute without justification based on conservation needs - which wasn't demonstrated here by California's Fish and Game Commission.

In the dissenting opinion for Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of judicial power. He contended that it is not within the purview of courts to decide on matters related to foreign policy or immigration, as these are issues best left to legislative bodies and executive agencies with expertise in such areas. Furthermore, he pointed out that California had a legitimate interest in regulating its fishing industry due to concerns about overfishing and conservation efforts. The state law did not discriminate against Japanese immigrants specifically but applied equally to all non-citizens who were ineligible for citizenship under federal laws at the time - a category which included several other ethnic groups besides Japanese people. Therefore, according to Frankfurter's view, this case should have been decided based on principles of states' rights rather than racial discrimination.