NV federal judge strikes down main anti-immigrant statute as unconstitutional violation of 5AEP

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In McCready, Patsone, and Heim, the principal issue as seen by the Court was whether States had the same right to determine how to dispose of its property (use of public lands and wild game) and who to hire for itself that would be available to a private actor. (Patsone and Heim also dealt with how independent municipalities were.)

In contrast, in Truax the principal issue was over how much control States had over private employers even if said employers did not contract with a State. it was only when States tried to limit the action of private actors.

So, in all four of those early cases you cited, it basically boiled down to whether private actors could choose whether to discriminate in favor of citizens, (and in three whether States had the rights of private actors when acting in a civil capacity). In keeping with the philosophy of that era, it's not surprising that the decisions were as they were.

Terrace was similar but also depended upon whether agricultural property was a subclass of commercial property to see whether a treaty provision was involved. (The Court held it was not, which at first glance seems odd, but it's not uncommon in U.S. law for agriculture to be treated differently from other forms of commerce.)

It's only in the post-Lochner era that Equal Protection concerns began to impact these sorts of cases, as evidenced by Takahashi and later cases you cited.

If the Court does truly return to a Lochneresque philosophy, it's likely to issue decisions similar to those earlier cases in similar cases in the future.