In the case of Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. Conley, Attorney General of the State of West Virginia in 1912, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over taxation. The state had imposed taxes on railway companies based on their gross earnings from both interstate and intrastate commerce. The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company argued that this tax was unconstitutional as it interfered with interstate commerce which is under federal jurisdiction according to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. However, after reviewing previous cases dealing with similar issues such as Pullman's Palace Car Co v Pennsylvania (1891), Fargo v Michigan (1888) etc., Justice Lurton delivered an unanimous opinion upholding West Virginia’s right to levy such a tax stating that it did not interfere directly or indirectly with interstate commerce but rather fell within its power to impose property taxes for revenue purposes.

In the dissenting opinion for Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. Conley, it was argued that the majority's ruling failed to properly consider state rights in regulating commerce within its borders. The dissenters believed that West Virginia had a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from excessive freight rates imposed by railroads operating within the state. They contended that while Congress has power over interstate commerce, this does not negate or diminish states' ability to regulate local matters affecting their residents' welfare. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's view that federal law preempted West Virginia’s rate-setting statute as applied to coal transported across state lines but mined and sold within West Virginia itself. In essence, they felt this decision undermined states’ authority and autonomy unnecessarily.