In the case of Duckworth v. Arkansas in 1941, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving interstate commerce and state taxation rights. The appellant, Duckworth, was an independent contractor who transported goods across state lines for various companies. He challenged an Arkansas law that imposed a tax on his gross receipts from such transportation services within the state's borders as unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution which gives Congress exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. The court upheld Arkansas' right to levy this tax by distinguishing between taxes directly burdening interstate commerce (which would be unconstitutional) and those indirectly affecting it (which are permissible). It found that while Duckworth’s business involved crossing state lines, not all aspects were part of interstate commerce itself; some activities like loading or unloading cargo occurred entirely within one state's boundaries and could thus be subject to local taxation without violating federal jurisdiction over cross-border trade. Therefore, despite being engaged in what is generally considered an area reserved for federal regulation -interstate transport- certain elements remained taxable at a local level if they did not constitute direct interference with inter-state commercial activity.

In the dissenting opinion for Duckworth v. Arkansas, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting labor unions from collecting fees from non-union members violated First Amendment rights. The dissenters believed that this law interfered with freedom of association and expression by limiting union activities and thus undermining their ability to effectively represent workers' interests. They also contended that such laws could potentially lead to exploitation of workers who benefit from union negotiations without contributing financially, thereby weakening unions overall. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential bias in favor of employers if states were allowed to regulate union funding in this way.