In the 1909 case Franklin v. State of South Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Carolina, upholding a state law that allowed for the taxation of bonds issued by other states and municipalities outside its jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Franklin, was a resident of New York who owned bonds issued by various out-of-state entities but held them in trust within South Carolina. He argued that this tax violated both his Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection under the law and Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause because it discriminated against non-residents holding property within the state. The court disagreed with Franklin’s argument stating that there was no discrimination as residents were also taxed on their out-of-state bond holdings just like non-residents were taxed on their in-state bond holdings; thus everyone was treated equally under this tax scheme regardless of residency status or where they held their assets. Therefore, it did not violate either constitutional provision he cited.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Franklin v. State of South Carolina, 1909, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax imposed on an interstate commercial enterprise was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles established by the Supreme Court. The dissent contended that this tax interfered with interstate commerce and violated constitutional protections against such interference. It further asserted that it is not within a state’s power to impose taxes on activities or entities involved in interstate commerce as these are under federal jurisdiction according to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Therefore, they believed that upholding such a tax set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar issues and could potentially disrupt national economic unity by allowing states to interfere with federally regulated commercial activity.