In Toomer et al. v. Witsell et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina's statute requiring non-residents to pay a significantly higher fee than residents for commercial shrimp fishing licenses violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution. The court held that while states have authority over their natural resources, they cannot discriminate against citizens from other states in favor of their own citizens without justification. In this case, South Carolina failed to provide sufficient reasons why such discrimination was necessary or appropriate in preserving its shrimp population; therefore, it could not impose a hundredfold license fee on non-resident fishermen as compared to resident ones.

In the dissenting opinion for Toomer et al. v. Witsell et al., Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's ruling that South Carolina’s statute imposing higher license fees on non-residents was unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. He argued that states should have a right to protect their natural resources from depletion by outsiders, particularly when those resources are finite and easily exhausted like shrimp in coastal waters. He contended that it is within a state's rights to impose restrictions or regulations aimed at conservation efforts, even if they may appear discriminatory against non-residents on surface level. Furthermore, he emphasized that such measures do not necessarily violate constitutional principles as long as they serve legitimate state interests and are not arbitrary or unreasonable.