In the 1939 case of Ex Parte Bransford, County Treasurer of Pima County, Arizona, etc., the United States Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning tax law. The petitioner was an official who had been ordered by a lower court to refund taxes that were collected under what was later determined to be an unconstitutional state statute. The Supreme Court held that when a taxpayer pays their taxes without protest and then subsequently challenges the constitutionality of the tax law in question after it has been declared unconstitutional by another court ruling, they are not entitled to receive refunds for those payments made prior to such declaration. This decision established important precedent regarding taxpayers' rights and obligations under potentially unconstitutional statutes.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Bransford, it was argued that the majority's decision to grant a writ of habeas corpus and release Bransford from custody was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were no grounds for federal intervention in this case as it involved an issue of state law - specifically, whether Arizona had correctly interpreted its own tax laws. They contended that the Supreme Court should not interfere with a state's interpretation of its own statutes unless there is clear violation or misinterpretation. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority view that Bransford’s detention constituted a deprivation of his constitutional rights under Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. Instead, they saw his arrest as part of legitimate legal proceedings initiated by Pima County over unpaid taxes. Therefore, according to them, granting him relief via habeas corpus would undermine states' authority and disrupt balance between federal and state powers.