The DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Charlotte Cuno et al., 2005, was a U.S Supreme Court case that questioned the constitutionality of tax incentives offered by states to attract businesses. The plaintiffs, led by Charlotte Cuno, argued that Ohio's investment tax credit (ITC), which had been used to persuade DaimlerChrysler to build a new plant in Toledo instead of elsewhere, violated the Commerce Clause as it encouraged "in-state" investment and therefore discriminated against interstate commerce. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of DaimlerChrysler and Ohio state on procedural grounds without addressing this constitutional question directly. It held that taxpayers lacked standing to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply because they are taxpayers; there must be direct injury for them to have legal standing.

In the dissenting opinion for DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Charlotte Cuno et al., Justice Ginsburg argued that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, contrary to what was decided by the majority. She believed that Ohio taxpayers were indeed affected by tax incentives given to DaimlerChrysler because they resulted in a loss of public funds which could have been used for other purposes beneficial to them. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority's interpretation of precedent cases and contended that these cases did not establish an absolute bar against taxpayer lawsuits challenging state subsidies as violating federal law. Instead, she suggested such suits should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis considering factors like whether there is a clear nexus between taxpayer status and claim type or if legislative remedies are available.