The U.S. Supreme Court case Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee, for the Use of Memphis (1895) revolved around a dispute over taxation between the state and a bank incorporated under its laws. The issue at hand was whether or not it was constitutional for Tennessee to tax the bank's shares held by non-residents differently than those held by residents, which would be in violation of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution that guarantees citizens from each state are entitled to all privileges and immunities in other states. The court ruled against the Bank of Commerce stating that there is no obligation on any State so to shape her policy as not to impose different taxes upon property owned by persons residing within her limits and similar property belonging to non-residents; nor does such difference constitute an unlawful discrimination against citizens of other States who own property within her borders.

In the dissenting opinion for Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and constitutional principles. He contended that a state has no right to tax national banks beyond what is permitted by Congress under federal law, emphasizing that this principle had been upheld in several prior cases. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of an 1864 statute as allowing states to impose taxes on shares held by non-residents or out-of-state entities; instead, he believed it only authorized taxation on shareholders residing within their jurisdictional boundaries. Thus, according to Justice Harlan’s view, Tennessee's attempt to levy such a tax violated both statutory and constitutional provisions protecting interstate commerce from undue burdens imposed by individual states.