In the case of Baltzer and Taaks v. North Carolina in 1895, two men were convicted for selling liquor without a license in violation of state law. They appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that their conviction violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights as they claimed that North Carolina's licensing laws discriminated against out-of-state businesses by favoring local ones. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, upholding the convictions and ruling that states have broad power under the Constitution to regulate alcohol sales within their borders. The court found no evidence of discrimination against out-of-state businesses because all sellers, regardless if they are from inside or outside North Carolina, must obtain a license to sell liquor legally in accordance with state law.

The dissenting opinion in the Baltzer and Taaks v. North Carolina case argued that the defendants, who were German sailors accused of murder on an American ship while it was docked at a Brazilian port, should not have been tried under North Carolina law. The dissenting justices contended that jurisdiction for such crimes committed on foreign soil or international waters lies with federal courts as per Article III of the U.S Constitution which grants them authority over "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls." They also pointed out that there is no provision in either state or federal law granting states jurisdiction over crimes committed outside their territory. Therefore, they believed this trial violated constitutional principles by extending state power beyond its legal limits.