In the case of Terk v. Gordon, Director, New Mexico Department of Fish and Game et al., 1977, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state could prohibit non-residents from hunting certain big game animals within its borders while allowing residents to do so. The petitioner, Terk, argued that this policy violated his constitutional right to equal protection under the law as it discriminated against him based on his residency status. However, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Thurgood Marshall (with Justices Brennan and Stevens not participating), the court upheld New Mexico's regulations. They found that states have an interest in conserving their wildlife populations for future generations and can therefore regulate hunting activities accordingly - even if these regulations result in different treatment for residents versus non-residents.

The dissenting opinion in the case of TERK v. GORDON, DIRECTOR, NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, et al., 1977 argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of federal power and a violation of states' rights. The dissenters believed that New Mexico had the right to regulate its own wildlife without interference from the federal government. They contended that Congress did not have authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate non-commercial hunting on private land within a state because it does not substantially affect interstate commerce. Furthermore, they disagreed with applying treaty law as supreme over state laws regarding conservation efforts for game animals like elk which are primarily managed at a local level rather than nationally or internationally.