In the 1936 case of Chisholm et al. v. Gilmer, Receiver, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on matters related to bankruptcy and property rights. The appellants were creditors who had lent money to a company that subsequently went bankrupt. They sought repayment from the receiver (Gilmer) who held assets of the bankrupt company in trust for its creditors. The main issue at hand was whether or not certain properties could be considered as part of the debtor's estate available for distribution among all unsecured creditors or if they should be exclusively used to repay specific secured claims first before any remaining value is distributed among other general unsecured creditors. The court ruled in favor of Gilmer, stating that under federal law governing bankruptcy proceedings, when a corporation goes into receivership due to insolvency, all its assets become part of a single pool meant for equitable distribution amongst all valid claimants - irrespective of their status as secured or unsecured lenders unless otherwise specified by state laws where such properties are located. This decision reinforced principles underlying US Bankruptcy Law which seeks fairness and equity in distributing insolvent debtors' estates amongst their various claimants while also respecting states' rights over property within their jurisdictions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chisholm et al. v. Gilmer, Receiver, 1936 was written by Justice McReynolds who disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed an Alabama state tax on out-of-state insurance companies. He argued that this violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution which gives Congress exclusive power over interstate commerce. According to him, allowing states to impose taxes on foreign corporations doing business within their borders would lead to economic protectionism and disrupt free trade among states - something he believed was against what framers intended when they drafted the Constitution. Furthermore, he contended that such taxation could potentially discourage out-of-state businesses from operating in certain jurisdictions due to fear of excessive or discriminatory taxation.