In the case of Barclay & Company, Incorporated v. Edwards, Collector of Internal Revenue for the Second District of New York (1924), the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a tax imposed on foreign corporations doing business in New York violated constitutional principles. The plaintiff, Barclay & Co., argued that it was unfairly taxed because it had no physical presence or property in New York and only conducted its business through independent contractors. However, the court ruled against Barclay & Co., stating that even though they did not have any tangible property within state lines, their continuous and systematic solicitation of orders which resulted in a large volume of interstate commerce constituted "doing business" within the meaning of local law. Therefore, they were subject to taxation by New York State without violating due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Barclay & Company, Incorporated v. Edwards, Collector of Internal Revenue for the Second District of New York, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on foreign corporations doing business within U.S. borders was unconstitutional and unjustified by precedent. He contended that such a tax unfairly targeted foreign businesses without providing them with any corresponding benefits or protections from government services funded by taxes. Furthermore, he asserted that this taxation violated principles of international comity and could potentially harm American businesses operating abroad if other countries chose to retaliate with similar measures. Finally, he criticized the majority's interpretation of relevant statutes as overly broad and inconsistent with their original intent.