The U.S. Supreme Court case EVCO v. Jones, Commissioner of Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico et al., 1972, revolved around the issue of taxation on out-of-state businesses operating within a state's jurisdiction. The plaintiff was EVCO Instructional Designs, an Illinois-based company that sold educational materials to schools in New Mexico but did not have any physical presence or employees in the state. The defendant was the Commissioner of Bureau of Revenue for New Mexico who imposed a use tax on EVCO’s sales made within their territory. EVCO argued this imposition violated both Due Process and Commerce Clauses as they had no substantial nexus with New Mexico since all orders were accepted outside the state and goods were delivered via common carrier or United States mail from outside the state. However, upon review by Justice White, it was held that there is no constitutional barrier preventing states from imposing taxes on interstate commerce provided it is fairly apportioned and does not discriminate against interstate commerce nor cause undue burden upon it. Therefore, despite having no physical presence in New Mexico, because its products were used inside the State's borders - thus benefiting from services provided by them such as roads and public safety - EVCO could be subjected to use tax.

The dissenting opinion in the EVCO v. Jones case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and could potentially lead to unfair taxation practices. The dissenters believed that New Mexico had overstepped its bounds by imposing a use tax on goods purchased out-of-state for use within New Mexico, arguing this violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution which prohibits states from interfering with interstate commerce. They contended that such taxes should only be imposed by the state where a purchase is made, not where it is used or consumed. This view held that if every state were allowed to impose their own use tax on out-of-state purchases, it would create an undue burden on interstate commerce and result in double taxation - once at point of sale and again at point of consumption - thus violating principles of fairness and equity in taxation.