In the case of Green et al. v. Frazier, Governor, et al., 1919, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a North Dakota law that taxed railroad property at higher rates than other types of property violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were railway companies who argued that this tax policy unfairly targeted their industry and therefore constituted discrimination under federal law. However, after examining previous cases and considering arguments from both sides, the court ruled in favor of Governor Frazier and his co-defendants by upholding North Dakota's right to impose different tax rates on various forms of property as long as it did not result in clear inequality or injustice against certain taxpayers. This decision reinforced states' authority over taxation matters within their jurisdiction while also affirming constitutional protections against arbitrary discrimination.

In the dissenting opinion for Green et al. v. Frazier, Governor, et al., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and an overreach of federal power into state affairs. He contended that North Dakota had not violated any constitutional rights by implementing a tax on grain elevators because it did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses or interfere with interstate commerce as claimed by plaintiffs from Minnesota and South Dakota who owned grain elevators in North Dakota but were non-residents there. Instead, he saw this as a legitimate exercise of state power to regulate business within its borders for public welfare purposes such as ensuring fair prices and preventing monopolies which could harm local farmers and consumers alike if left unchecked.