In the 1904 case of Cunnius, now Smith, v. Reading School District, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over school taxes. The plaintiff, Mrs. Cunnius (later known as Mrs. Smith), was a resident and taxpayer in the Reading School District in Pennsylvania who challenged an assessment for school tax on her property by arguing that it was unconstitutional under both state and federal law because it included items not taxable for such purposes according to local laws or regulations. The court ruled against Mrs. Smith stating that she had failed to exhaust all available remedies at the state level before bringing her case to federal court - specifically noting that she did not appeal within statutory time limits set by Pennsylvania law after receiving notice of her increased tax assessment from local authorities. This decision reinforced principles of federalism where states have primary jurisdiction over matters related to their internal affairs unless there is clear violation of constitutional rights which wasn't evident here since taxation powers are generally vested in states & municipalities subject only to restrictions imposed by respective constitutions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cunnius, now Smith, v. Reading School District argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of Pennsylvania law and an overreach by the federal judiciary into state affairs. The dissent contended that under Pennsylvania law, school districts had broad discretion to determine their own policies regarding student attendance and curriculum. In this particular case, they believed it was within Reading School District’s rights to require students to attend public schools unless they were receiving equivalent instruction elsewhere. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "equivalent" education; arguing that religious or private schooling could not be automatically considered as such without further evidence or evaluation from local authorities. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential implications for states' rights if federal courts continued intervening in matters traditionally left up to individual states.