In the case of William Fex v. Michigan in 1992, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state can legally require an individual to pay child support even if they are not biologically related to the child. The case involved William Fex who was ordered by a Michigan court to continue paying child support for his ex-wife's son, despite DNA tests proving he was not the biological father. He appealed this decision arguing it violated his rights under Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment but both appeals were rejected by lower courts. When brought before Supreme Court, it declined to hear his appeal thereby upholding previous rulings and establishing precedent that states have authority in such matters.

In the dissenting opinion for William Fex v. Michigan, the justice argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of precedent and an overreach of federal power into state jurisdiction. The justice believed that states should have autonomy in determining their own tax laws without interference from federal courts unless there is clear evidence of discrimination against interstate commerce. They contended that Michigan’s Single Business Tax (SBT) did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses as it applied equally to all businesses operating within its borders, regardless of where they were headquartered or incorporated. Furthermore, they pointed out that any perceived disadvantage to out-of-state companies could be offset by other factors such as lower operational costs in their home states. Therefore, according to this view, striking down SBT would unnecessarily disrupt state revenue systems and undermine principles of federalism.