In the case of Gordon v. Texas, 1957, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to consider whether a state could impose a tax on liquor that had been imported into it from another state and remained in its original package. The petitioner, Gordon, argued that this violated Section 2 of Article IX of the U.S Constitution which prohibits states from imposing duties on imports or exports without Congress's consent. However, upon review by Justice Hugo Black for unanimous court decision ruled against him stating that once an item has reached its destination and is no longer in transit between states (i.e., it becomes part of general mass within recipient state), then it loses its character as an import and can be subjected to local taxation just like any other property located within said jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Gordon v. Texas, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring liquor dealers to purchase licenses from both county and city governments was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar issues of double taxation. He pointed out that in past cases, such as Howard v. Illinois Central R.R., Co., 207 U.S. 463, the Court had ruled against states imposing multiple taxes on interstate commerce activities within their borders because it violated principles of federalism and economic fairness established by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Douglas further contended that allowing local governments to impose additional licensing fees on top of those required by state law essentially amounted to an unfair tax burden being placed upon businesses engaged in interstate commerce activities - something he believed was contrary to constitutional protections designed to prevent discriminatory or protectionist trade practices between states. He concluded his dissent by expressing concern over what he saw as a dangerous precedent being set by this ruling; one which could potentially lead other local jurisdictions across America into adopting similarly restrictive measures aimed at raising revenue through excessive taxation rather than promoting fair competition and economic growth within their communities.