In the 1935 case of Bingaman, Commissioner of Revenue, et al. v. Golden Eagle Western Lines, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over taxation between New Mexico and an interstate bus company. The state had imposed a tax on every gallon of gasoline sold within its borders; however, Golden Eagle Western Lines argued that this was unconstitutional as it interfered with interstate commerce by taxing fuel used for out-of-state travel. The court ruled in favor of New Mexico stating that while states cannot impede or control interstate commerce directly through taxation or otherwise, they can impose taxes on items such as gasoline which are consumed within their boundaries even if those goods will be used to facilitate trade across state lines.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bingaman, Commissioner of Revenue, et al. v. Golden Eagle Western Lines, Inc., argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of interstate commerce laws. The dissenters believed that the state tax imposed on Golden Eagle Western Lines did not interfere with interstate commerce as it was a property tax based on mileage within New Mexico rather than an attempt to regulate or burden out-of-state activities. They contended that this type of taxation had been upheld by prior court decisions and should be considered constitutional under existing precedents for apportionment-based taxes on transportation companies operating across state lines.