The U.S. Supreme Court case Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, Maine (1996) revolved around a tax exemption dispute between the town and a non-profit camp that primarily served out-of-state residents. The State of Maine provided property tax exemptions to charitable institutions but excluded organizations operated principally for the benefit of non-residents from this provision. The camp argued that this exclusion violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce since it predominantly catered to out-of-state attendees. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Camps Newfound/Owatonna, holding that Maine's law was unconstitutional as it did discriminate against interstate commerce by providing benefits only to those who serve local residents while imposing burdens on entities serving mostly nonresidents or engaging in substantial interstate activity. This ruling affirmed that states cannot use their taxing power to favor domestic over foreign corporations and reinforced principles protecting free trade among states under the Commerce Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. v. TOWN OF HARRISON, MAINE et al., Justice Scalia argued that Maine's tax exemption did not discriminate against interstate commerce because it was available to all charitable institutions in the state regardless of whether they served primarily out-of-state residents or in-state residents. He contended that the majority misapplied precedent by treating this as a case about discrimination against out-of-state entities when it was actually about differential treatment of certain activities within the state based on their impact on local versus non-local interests. Furthermore, he suggested that if any constitutional provision were implicated here, it would be the Privileges and Immunities Clause rather than the Commerce Clause since what was at issue was not so much economic protectionism as favoritism towards locals over non-locals in access to public benefits.