In the 1893 Supreme Court case Brass v. North Dakota, ex rel. Stoeser, the court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and taxation in North Dakota. The plaintiff, Brass, was a non-resident who owned property in the state but did not pay taxes on it for several years due to an exemption granted by Congress to encourage settlement of public lands. When this exemption expired and he still failed to pay his taxes, local officials seized his property and sold it at auction where it was purchased by Stoeser. Brass sued claiming that he had been denied due process because he wasn't given sufficient notice before his property was taken from him; however, the Supreme Court disagreed with him stating that as long as there is some form of notification (in this case through publication), then due process has been served even if actual notice hasn't been received by the party involved. The ruling affirmed states' rights to tax properties within their borders regardless of whether or not owners reside out-of-state while also clarifying what constitutes adequate notification under law when seizing assets for unpaid taxes.

The dissenting opinion in the Brass v. North Dakota case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Supreme Court regarding interstate commerce and taxation. The dissenters believed that a state should not have authority to tax property being transported through it for sale, as this would interfere with free trade between states. They contended that such taxes are essentially duties on imports or exports, which are expressly prohibited by the Constitution unless absolutely necessary for executing inspection laws. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies within the majority’s reasoning; while claiming to uphold principles established in prior cases like Coe v. Errol and Brown v Maryland, their ruling contradicted these precedents instead.