The U.S. Supreme Court case Baltic Mining Company v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1913 revolved around the issue of taxation and corporate rights. The Baltic Mining Company, a Michigan corporation with its primary business operations in Michigan, was taxed by the state of Massachusetts based on its capital stock value despite having no property or assets within that state's jurisdiction. The company argued this tax violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law as it was essentially being taxed twice for the same income - once by Michigan where it operated, and again by Massachusetts where it had shareholders but no physical presence or operations. However, the Supreme Court upheld Massachusetts' right to levy such a tax ruling that states have authority over corporations created under their laws even if they operate elsewhere; thus allowing them to impose taxes on those entities regardless of whether they own property within their borders or not. This decision affirmed states' power to regulate businesses incorporated within their jurisdictions while also highlighting how corporations could be subject to multiple layers of taxation depending upon various factors including location of operation and shareholder residency.

In the dissenting opinion for Baltic Mining Company v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it was argued that the tax imposed by Massachusetts on foreign corporations doing business within its borders is unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed that this tax violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as it discriminated against out-of-state businesses. They contended that a state cannot impose a higher rate of taxation on foreign corporations than what is levied on domestic ones solely because they are incorporated under laws of another state or country. This, according to them, amounted to an unjustifiable burden on interstate commerce and infringed upon federal authority over such matters. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that this was merely a franchise or privilege tax; instead asserting it was clearly an income tax based not only on property located in Massachusetts but also earnings derived from other states - thus exceeding constitutional limits.