In the case of Brown v. Trousdale, 1890, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that allowed for taxation on out-of-state bonds violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The plaintiff, Brown, argued that Tennessee's tax laws unfairly taxed his income from bonds issued by other states and foreign governments. He contended this constituted an infringement upon interstate commerce and thus contravened federal jurisdiction over such matters as stipulated in the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution. The court ruled against Brown stating that while Congress has exclusive authority to regulate interstate commerce under Article I Section 8 of the constitution (the Commerce Clause), it does not prevent a state from imposing taxes on its residents' incomes derived from any source within or outside its borders unless expressly prohibited by federal legislation. Therefore, Tennessee’s imposition of tax did not violate either constitutional provisions or infringe upon federal powers.

In the dissenting opinion for Brown v. Trousdale, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that denied a claim on land in Mississippi based on an 1836 treaty between the United States and Chickasaw Nation. The case involved two parties both claiming ownership of the same piece of land: one party (Brown) based their claim on a patent from U.S government while other party (Trousdale) claimed it through purchase from Chickasaw Indians who had received it via aforementioned treaty. Justice Lamar argued that under this treaty, lands were not opened up for public sale until after they had been offered to settlers at private sale; therefore, any patents issued before such private sales were invalid as per his interpretation of said Treaty. He believed that Trousdale’s title should be recognized because he purchased directly from those entitled by virtue of being original inhabitants i.e., Chickasaws rather than relying upon faulty governmental issuance like Brown did.