In the case of Cox v. Hart, 1891, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a tax assessment on shares in national banks was constitutional under federal law. The plaintiff argued that his shares were being unfairly taxed at a higher rate than other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens. However, the court ruled against him and upheld the constitutionality of such taxation by states. Justice Samuel Blatchford delivered an opinion for a unanimous court stating that there is no prohibition on state taxation of such property as long as it does not exceed its fair cash value and is not assessed at more than its true value in money compared to other taxable properties within their jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Cox v. Hart, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting interracial marriage violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices contended that such laws were inherently discriminatory and served no legitimate purpose other than to perpetuate racial hierarchy. They further maintained that these laws infringed upon an individual's fundamental right to marry, which should not be subjected to arbitrary governmental interference based on race. In their view, any attempt by states to regulate marriage must meet strict scrutiny standards under constitutional review - meaning they must serve a compelling government interest in a narrowly tailored way - something they believed anti-miscegenation statutes failed at doing.