In the case of American Sugar Refining Company v. New Orleans (1900), the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a city ordinance in New Orleans, which required all sugar to be inspected and classified before it could be sold or shipped, was constitutional. The American Sugar Refining Company argued that this law violated their rights under the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment by imposing an unnecessary burden on interstate commerce and depriving them of property without due process. However, the court ruled against them stating that local inspection laws were not necessarily unconstitutional if they served a legitimate public purpose such as protecting consumers from fraud or ensuring product quality. In this instance, since there was no evidence suggesting that the inspection requirement was being used for protectionist purposes or to discriminate against out-of-state businesses, it did not violate either clause.

The dissenting opinion in the case of American Sugar Refining Company v. New Orleans argued that the city of New Orleans did not have a right to tax property located outside its jurisdiction, even if it was owned by a company operating within its boundaries. The justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Louisiana state law and believed that such taxation violated principles of fairness and equity. He contended that allowing local governments to impose taxes on out-of-jurisdiction properties would lead to double taxation, as those properties could also be taxed by their own jurisdictions. This, he asserted, would discourage businesses from investing or expanding beyond their home jurisdictions due to fear of excessive taxation.