In Wilde v. Wyoming et al., the U.S Supreme Court addressed a case involving land rights and mineral extraction in 1959. The dispute arose when the State of Wyoming attempted to tax oil companies for extracting minerals from federal lands within its borders, which were leased by private entities like Mr. Wilde's company. He argued that as per federal law, states could not impose taxes on activities occurring on federally owned lands. The court ruled against Mr.Wilde stating that while it was true that states couldn't directly tax the United States government or its property, this prohibition did not extend to private businesses operating on such properties under lease agreements with the government. Therefore, even though these lands were technically owned by the Federal Government, they still fell within Wyoming's jurisdiction for taxation purposes because they were being used for commercial operations by a private entity. This ruling clarified an important aspect of state versus federal powers regarding taxation and resource extraction rights - affirming that states have authority over economic activities taking place within their boundaries regardless of who owns the land where those activities occur.

In the dissenting opinion for Wilde v. Wyoming, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting elk in certain areas of Wyoming violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this clause guarantees citizens who move from one state to another equal enjoyment of basic rights and protections, including access to natural resources such as wildlife. They asserted that while states have authority over their own wildlife populations, they cannot discriminate against non-residents when regulating hunting privileges because doing so infringes upon those individuals' constitutional rights. Furthermore, they contended that any concerns about conservation or population management should be addressed through other means rather than discriminatory laws targeting out-of-state hunters.