The U.S. Supreme Court case Central Pacific Railroad Company v. Nevada (1895) revolved around the issue of whether a state could tax federal property, specifically railroad tracks and equipment owned by the Central Pacific Railroad Company but built with federal assistance. The State of Nevada imposed taxes on these properties, which led to a dispute between the company and the state government. The court ruled in favor of Central Pacific Railroad Company, stating that states cannot impose taxes on property owned or constructed by the federal government as it would interfere with governmental functions and violate constitutional principles related to intergovernmental tax immunity. This decision reinforced limitations on state power over federally-owned properties.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Central Pacific Railroad Company v. Nevada argued that the majority's decision to exempt interstate commerce from state taxation was an overreach of federal power and a violation of states' rights. The dissenters believed that this interpretation was not supported by the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among states but does not explicitly prohibit state taxation on such activities. They contended that if a tax is fair, non-discriminatory, and does not interfere with interstate commerce or federal regulations, it should be allowed under principles of sovereignty and federalism. Furthermore, they pointed out potential negative consequences for states' financial stability as they could lose significant revenue sources due to this ruling.