In the case of Alaska v. Wright, 2020, the Supreme Court was asked to review a decision made by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding an Alaskan tax law. The state had imposed a higher tax rate on oil and gas produced outside its coastal areas than those within it. This differential taxation was challenged by Mr. Wright who argued that this violated both the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the U.S Constitution as it discriminated against interstate commerce and lacked fair notice respectively. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Mr.Wright stating that Alaska's tax scheme did indeed violate these constitutional provisions.The Supreme court however reversed this ruling holding that there was no violation since states have broad authority under their police powers to manage their natural resources,and thus can impose different taxes based on geographical location.Furthermore,the court found no due process violation as taxpayers were given adequate notice about how taxes would be assessed.

In the dissenting opinion for Alaska v. Wright, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling allowing police officers to enter homes without warrants under "community caretaking" exceptions is an overreach of power and infringes on citizens' Fourth Amendment rights. The dissenters contended that this exception should only apply in cases where there is immediate danger or threat, not as a blanket rule permitting warrantless entries into private residences. They expressed concern about potential misuse by law enforcement and stressed the importance of maintaining constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous case law used to justify their decision.