In the 1946 case of De Meerleer v. Michigan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving interstate commerce and taxation. The plaintiff, De Meerleer, was a resident of Michigan who owned property in both Michigan and Illinois. He sold his Illinois property but did not report this income to the state of Michigan for tax purposes because he believed it fell under interstate commerce which is protected from state taxation by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The State Tax Commission disagreed with him and assessed taxes on this income anyway, leading to De Meerleer filing suit against them claiming that they were violating his constitutional rights by taxing an activity that falls under interstate commerce. However, upon review at Supreme Court level, it was determined that selling real estate does not constitute as engaging in interstate commerce since there's no continuous flow or exchange across state lines involved in such transactions unlike traditional commercial activities like manufacturing or retailing goods/services etc., hence doesn't fall within purview of Commerce Clause protections. Therefore ruling went against Mr.De Meerleer upholding State Tax Commission's decision to levy taxes on sale proceeds from his out-of-state property.

In the dissenting opinion for De Meerleer v. Michigan, it was argued that the majority's decision violated principles of federalism and due process. The dissenting justices believed that states should have the authority to regulate their own affairs without interference from federal courts unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights. They contended that in this case, no such violation had occurred as Mr. De Meerleer was not denied his right to a fair trial or any other fundamental right protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "public use," arguing that it overly broadened its definition and encroached on state powers to determine what constitutes public use within their jurisdictions.