In the case of Allen v. Smith in 1898, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that allowed for the seizure and sale of imported goods due to unpaid storage fees was constitutional. The appellant, Allen, argued that this law violated his rights under Article I Section 10 Clause 2 of the Constitution which prohibits states from imposing duties on imports or exports without Congressional approval. However, Justice Edward Douglass White ruled against him stating that these charges were not import duties but rather compensation for services rendered by warehousemen who stored these goods. Therefore they did not violate any federal laws or regulations regarding interstate commerce as claimed by Allen. This decision upheld states' rights to regulate business practices within their borders while also affirming Congress's exclusive power over international trade matters.

In the dissenting opinion for Allen v. Smith, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of both constitutional law and precedent. He contended that Congress did not have unlimited power to regulate commerce between states and foreign nations, but rather this power should be exercised in accordance with other provisions of the Constitution. In particular, he pointed out that levying duties on imports is a form of taxation which must comply with Article I Section 9 Clause 5 - no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. The majority’s ruling allowed such taxes under the guise of regulating commerce, thereby violating this clause according to Harlan's interpretation. Furthermore, he disagreed with their reliance on previous cases as justification for their decision because those cases involved different issues and were therefore not applicable precedents.