In the 1930 case of Wampler v. Lecompte, State Game Warden, et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kansas state game wardens who had seized a shipment of quail from Missouri that was being transported to Colorado by Mr. Wampler. The court held that states have the right to protect and preserve their wildlife as an exercise of police power even if it interferes with interstate commerce. In this case, Kansas law prohibited transportation or possession of game birds during certain months regardless if they were killed legally elsewhere; thus making Mr.Wampler's actions illegal under state law despite his claim that he was merely transporting them through Kansas without selling or using them within its borders. This ruling affirmed states' rights over federal control in matters relating to conservation and protection of local fauna.

The dissenting opinion in the Wampler v. Lecompte case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and infringed upon states' rights. The dissenting justices believed that the state of Kansas had a legitimate interest in protecting its wildlife, which justified its regulation of hunting licenses. They contended that this was not an issue of interstate commerce but rather one concerning conservation efforts within a state's borders. Therefore, they felt it should be up to individual states to decide how best to manage their natural resources without federal interference. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted discrimination against non-residents, arguing instead that differential treatment did not necessarily equate to unjust prejudice or violation of equal protection laws.