In the 1902 case of Caldwell v. North Carolina, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of North Carolina, upholding a state law that required all life insurance companies operating within its borders to maintain a certain amount of assets within the state. The plaintiff, Caldwell, was an agent for a New York-based life insurance company and argued that this law violated both his Fourteenth Amendment rights and the Commerce Clause by unfairly discriminating against out-of-state businesses. However, the court disagreed with these claims. It held that states have broad powers to regulate industries such as insurance under their police powers and found no violation of either constitutional provision cited by Caldwell.

In the dissenting opinion for Caldwell v. North Carolina, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from selling books without first obtaining a license violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The dissenting justices contended that such restrictions on interstate commerce were unconstitutional and infringed upon federal authority. They believed this ruling allowed states to unjustly discriminate against out-of-state businesses, thereby disrupting national economic unity and free trade among states. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential misuse of such laws by states aiming to protect local industries at the expense of out-of-state competitors or even suppress certain types of literature based on content under guise of regulating commerce. This could lead to an imbalance in power between state and federal governments as well as threaten individual liberties protected under First Amendment rights.