In the case of Flournoy v. Wiener et al., 1943, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law imposing an inheritance tax on property located outside of Louisiana was unconstitutional. The court held that this violated both the Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The state argued it had jurisdiction to impose such a tax because Mr. Wiener, who owned stocks in out-of-state corporations, was domiciled in Louisiana at his death; however, these shares were physically located outside of Louisiana and thus beyond its taxing power according to federal law. This decision reinforced states' limitations regarding taxation powers over interstate commerce or properties situated elsewhere.

In the dissenting opinion for Flournoy v. Wiener, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by intervening in a state tax matter. He contended that it was not within the Court's jurisdiction to decide whether Louisiana could impose an inheritance tax on federal bonds owned by a deceased resident of another state. According to him, this issue should be left up to Congress and individual states rather than being decided by judicial interpretation of ambiguous laws or constitutional provisions. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on federalism if courts continued to interfere with states' taxation powers without clear legal justification.