In the 1911 case Bryan, Collector of the Port of Charleston v. Ker, Executri, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a tax imposed on an inheritance left to a foreign relative was constitutional. The decedent had lived in South Carolina and his will stipulated that his estate should be divided among several relatives living abroad. The state's Inheritance Tax Law required that any property transferred to non-resident aliens be taxed at higher rates than those applied to resident citizens or foreigners residing within the U.S.. The executor of the estate argued this law violated both treaty obligations and equal protection rights under Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld South Carolina’s right to impose such taxes. It ruled that states have broad powers over taxation matters as long as they do not infringe upon federal authority or violate specific protections outlined in Constitution. Furthermore, it found no violation of equal protection clause because differentiation between residents and non-residents for tax purposes is permissible if based on substantial differences affecting interests of classes involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Bryan, Collector of the Port of Charleston v. Ker, Executrix (1911), Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision that a state could not tax an inheritance where both parties resided outside its jurisdiction. He argued that it was irrelevant whether or not South Carolina had any connection to either party involved in this case because all states have inherent sovereignty and should be able to impose taxes as they see fit within their borders. Holmes believed that if a state chose to levy such a tax, it would be valid under its sovereign power unless expressly prohibited by federal law or constitutionally impermissible. The justice also pointed out potential complications arising from limiting states' taxing powers based on geographical connections between taxpayers and jurisdictions; he warned against creating unnecessary legal complexities through judicial decisions when simpler solutions were available via legislative action.