In the 1917 case of Duus, Administrator of Peterson v. Brown, Treasurer of the State of Iowa, the US Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state inheritance tax law could be applied retroactively. The controversy arose after an Iowan man died and left his estate to his brother in Denmark. At that time, there were no taxes on such transfers but shortly thereafter Iowa enacted a new statute imposing inheritance taxes including those on estates not yet fully administered. The administrator for the deceased's estate argued this violated due process rights under both federal and state constitutions as it imposed taxation without representation or notice. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brown (Iowa), upholding that states have broad powers to levy taxes within their jurisdiction and can apply them retrospectively if they choose so long as it does not violate any specific constitutional prohibitions - which was found not applicable here since there is no prohibition against retrospective civil laws generally nor specifically regarding taxation matters.

In the dissenting opinion for Duus v. Brown, it was argued that the state of Iowa had no right to tax a non-resident's personal property located outside its jurisdiction. The justice believed this violated constitutional principles by imposing an extraterritorial tax and infringing on interstate commerce rights. He contended that if every state followed Iowa's example, it would lead to multiple taxation of the same property in different states - a situation he deemed unfair and unjustifiable. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of legal domicile as being sufficient grounds for such taxation; instead arguing that physical presence or substantial connections should be required before a state can impose taxes on out-of-state assets belonging to non-residents.