In the case of Atkinson et al. v. State Tax Commission of Oregon et al., 1937, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State Tax Commission of Oregon. The plaintiffs, a group of taxpayers from Washington who owned property in Oregon, challenged an amendment to the state constitution that imposed higher taxes on out-of-state landowners than those levied on residents. They argued this was discriminatory and violated their rights under both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment as well as Privileges and Immunities Clause Article IV Section 2 clause 1of US Constitution . However, Justice Benjamin N Cardozo delivered opinion for unanimous court stating that differential tax treatment between resident and non-resident owners is not unconstitutional because it does not infringe upon any fundamental privilege or immunity protected by Constitution nor does it violate due process or equal protection principles since there is rational basis for such distinction i.e., administrative convenience & promoting local investment.

In the dissenting opinion for Atkinson et al. v. State Tax Commission of Oregon et al., Justice Butler argued that the tax imposed by Oregon on intangible property held outside of the state was unconstitutional as it violated both due process and equal protection clauses. He contended that a state has no jurisdiction to impose taxes on properties located outside its boundaries, even if owned by residents within its borders. Furthermore, he believed this taxation discriminated against those who own out-of-state securities compared to those owning similar in-state assets, thus violating equal protection rights under Fourteenth Amendment. In his view, such discriminatory treatment could not be justified merely because some other states might also levy taxes on these same securities or because it may seem desirable from an economic standpoint.