In the case of Askren, Attorney General of New Mexico, et al. v. Continental Oil Company (1919), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state could impose taxes on an out-of-state corporation for oil and gas extracted within its borders but sold elsewhere. The State of New Mexico had imposed such a tax on Continental Oil Company, which challenged it as unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause that prohibits states from interfering with interstate commerce. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Continental Oil Company, finding that while states have broad powers to tax businesses operating within their borders, they cannot use this power to interfere with interstate commerce by taxing goods destined for sale in other states. This decision affirmed principles established in earlier cases about limits on state taxation powers under the Commerce Clause and clarified how these principles apply to natural resources like oil and gas.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Askren v. Continental Oil Company argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of New Mexico's laws and constitution, which they believed clearly gave the state authority to regulate oil production within its borders. They contended that this power included setting limits on how much oil could be produced by any one company or individual, as well as imposing penalties for exceeding those limits. The dissenters felt that such regulations were necessary to prevent wasteful practices and ensure fair competition among producers. They also disagreed with the majority's view that these regulations violated property rights, arguing instead that they were a legitimate exercise of state police powers aimed at protecting public resources and promoting general welfare.