In the case of Brownfield v. South Carolina in 1902, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a decision made by the state court of South Carolina to tax bonds issued by counties and municipalities outside of its jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Mr. Brownfield, was a resident of Pennsylvania who owned bonds issued by various cities in his home state but resided part-time in South Carolina where he kept these securities. He argued that this taxation violated both due process and equal protection clauses under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as an infringement on interstate commerce regulations. The Supreme Court disagreed with Brownfield's argument stating that since he had chosen to domicile himself within South Carolina for part of each year and keep his property there during those periods, it was reasonable for him to be subject to their laws including taxation policies even if they differed from those applied elsewhere such as his native Pennsylvania. This ruling reinforced states' rights over local matters like taxation while also clarifying how residency is determined when considering legal obligations across different jurisdictions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Brownfield v. South Carolina argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles and precedent regarding due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent contended that it is not within the power of a state to deprive an individual of their property without providing just compensation, even if such deprivation is done under police powers for public health or safety reasons. It further asserted that any law which authorizes such deprivation without proper compensation violates constitutional protections against arbitrary governmental action and should be deemed unconstitutional. In this particular case, they believed Mr. Brownfield’s property rights were violated when his land was taken by South Carolina for use as a drainage canal without adequate compensation being provided.