In the Baldwin v. Maryland case of 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving taxation and interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Baldwin, was a New York resident who owned stock in several corporations based in Maryland. He argued that he should not be required to pay taxes on his stocks because they were part of interstate commerce and therefore exempt from state taxation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. However, the court disagreed with this argument and upheld Maryland's right to tax out-of-state shareholders like Baldwin for their shares in domestic corporations operating within its borders. The court reasoned that such taxation did not interfere with or burden interstate commerce as it was applied equally to both residents and non-residents alike.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Baldwin v. Maryland argued that the state's taxation on out-of-state corporations was not unconstitutional, as it did not violate the Commerce Clause or Fourteenth Amendment. The justices contended that states have a right to tax businesses operating within their borders, even if they are incorporated elsewhere. They believed this practice is necessary for maintaining public infrastructure and services used by these companies. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "privileges and immunities," arguing that it does not guarantee corporations immunity from state taxes. Lastly, they expressed concerns about potential negative impacts on states' financial stability resulting from this ruling.