The U.S. Supreme Court case Goldberg v. Sweet, 1988, revolved around the constitutionality of an Illinois tax law that taxed interstate telephone calls at a higher rate than intrastate calls. The plaintiffs argued that this violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution by discriminating against interstate commerce and subjecting it to multiple taxation. However, the court ruled in favor of Illinois with a 6-3 decision stating that although there was potential for multiple taxation under this law, it did not automatically make it unconstitutional as long as there was fair apportionment which ensured taxes were levied only on activities connected to taxing state's economic interests. Furthermore, they concluded that discrimination against interstate commerce did not exist because both types of calls were subjected to equal risk of taxation.

In the dissenting opinion of Goldberg v. Sweet, Justice Scalia argued that Illinois' tax on interstate telephone calls did not violate the Commerce Clause as it was applied to both in-state and out-of-state services equally. He contended that this case should be viewed differently from other cases involving taxation of interstate commerce because telecommunication services are inherently different; they cannot exist without a physical presence in each state where service is provided. Therefore, he reasoned, states have a legitimate interest in taxing these services within their borders. Furthermore, Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "fair apportionment," arguing that there is no constitutional requirement for taxes to be directly proportional to benefits received by taxpayers or businesses operating within a state's jurisdiction.