In the 1935 case of Hart v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving interstate commerce and state taxation rights. The plaintiff, Hart, was an out-of-state business owner who sold goods in Virginia without having a physical presence or property within the state. He challenged Virginia's right to tax his sales as unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution which gives Congress exclusive power over interstate commerce. The court upheld Virginia's right to impose its tax on Hart’s sales activities within its borders. It reasoned that while states cannot interfere with interstate commerce directly, they can regulate and tax certain aspects of it indirectly if those activities are sufficiently local in nature (like selling goods). This decision affirmed that states have some authority to levy taxes on out-of-state businesses operating within their jurisdiction even when these operations involve interstate transactions.

In the dissenting opinion for Hart v. Virginia, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring fingerprinting and photographing of all arrestees violated constitutional rights. The dissent emphasized that this requirement infringed upon an individual’s right to privacy and protection against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments respectively. They contended that such procedures should only be permissible after conviction, not merely on suspicion or accusation of a crime. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential misuse of these records by authorities which could lead to unfair prejudice in future legal proceedings or other negative consequences for individuals who were never convicted or even charged with any offense following their arrest.