In the case of Broad River Power Co. v. Query et al., 1932, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over taxation between Broad River Power Company and South Carolina tax officials. The power company argued that it was being unfairly taxed by the state because its property valuation for tax purposes included intangible assets such as franchises and contracts, which were exempt from taxation under federal law due to interstate commerce protections. The court ruled in favor of South Carolina, stating that while certain types of intangible property could be considered part of interstate commerce and thus exempt from state taxes, this did not apply to all forms of intangible property without exception. In this particular case, they found no evidence that taxing these specific assets would interfere with interstate commerce or violate any other constitutional provisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Broad River Power Co. v. Query et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold South Carolina's tax on hydroelectric power generated within its borders and sold out of state violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress exclusive authority over interstate commerce. The dissent contended that by taxing a product destined for sale in another state, South Carolina effectively imposed a tariff on goods leaving its jurisdiction, thereby interfering with interstate trade and undermining federal supremacy in this area. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and previous decisions where similar taxes were struck down as unconstitutional burdens on interstate commerce.