In the case of Ashdown v. Utah in 1957, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving state taxation and interstate commerce. The appellant, Ashdown, was an Arizona resident who owned and operated trucks that transported goods between states including Utah. He challenged a Utah tax law which required out-of-state truckers to pay taxes for using its highways while exempting local truckers from such payments. Ashdown argued this violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution by discriminating against interstate commerce. The Supreme Court disagreed with Ashdown's argument and upheld Utah's tax law as constitutional. It reasoned that since all vehicles cause wear and tear on roads regardless of their origin or destination, it is fair for both in-state and out-of-state operators to contribute towards maintenance costs through taxation. Furthermore, it noted that although local operators were not directly taxed like their out-of-state counterparts they still contributed indirectly via other forms of state taxes (like property taxes). Therefore there was no discrimination against interstate commerce as alleged by Ashdown.

In the dissenting opinion for Ashdown v. Utah, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting picketing in front of private residences infringed upon First Amendment rights. The dissenters believed that peaceful picketing should be protected as free speech and assembly, regardless of location. They contended that while privacy is important, it should not override constitutional freedoms unless there is clear evidence of harm or disturbance caused by such activities. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on public sentiment against residential picketing rather than legal precedent or constitutional interpretation in reaching their decision.