The U.S. Supreme Court case Fulton Corporation v. Janice H. Faulkner, Secretary of Revenue of North Carolina in 1995 dealt with the constitutionality of a North Carolina tax law that taxed dividends received from out-of-state corporations at a higher rate than those received from in-state corporations. The plaintiff, Fulton Corporation, argued that this violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce and favoring local businesses over their out-of-state counterparts. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Fulton Corporation stating that North Carolina's tax scheme was indeed unconstitutional as it discouraged domestic companies from plying their trades in interstate commerce and thus violated the Commerce Clause which prohibits state taxation unduly burdening interstate commerce. This ruling reaffirmed previous decisions upholding free trade among states under federal regulation rather than individual state control or protectionism.

In the dissenting opinion for Fulton Corporation v. Faulkner, Justice Ginsburg argued that North Carolina's tax scheme did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it was designed to prevent double taxation and promote equitable apportionment. She noted that while the law may have had a discriminatory effect on out-of-state businesses, its primary purpose was to ensure fair taxation within state borders. Furthermore, she contended that striking down this law could potentially disrupt similar tax schemes in other states and create uncertainty in an area where stability is crucial for economic planning and investment decisions. Thus, she disagreed with majority’s decision which held North Carolina's intangibles tax unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.