In the 1898 case of Utter v. Franklin, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Washington state. The plaintiff, Utter, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had received it as part of a military bounty land warrant under an act passed by Congress in 1855. However, the defendant, Franklin argued that this sale was invalid because at the time of purchase there were no laws allowing for such sales to be made and thus they did not have legal title to sell it on to Utter. The court ruled in favor of Franklin stating that since there was no law permitting these types of sales when it occurred; therefore any subsequent transfer or sale would also be considered null and void.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Utter v. Franklin argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in Washington state waters was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed that this law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S Constitution which guarantees citizens' rights across all states. They contended that there should be no distinction between residents and non-residents when it comes to engaging in common occupations such as fishing, asserting that everyone has an equal right to earn a living through lawful means regardless of their residency status. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on conservation measures for fish populations; while acknowledging its importance, they maintained it shouldn't infringe upon individual liberties protected by constitution.