In the case of Henneford et al. v. Silas Mason Co., Inc. et al., 1936, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Washington State's right to impose a use tax on items purchased outside its jurisdiction for use within it, even if those items had already been subjected to a sales tax elsewhere. The court held that such taxation did not violate the Commerce Clause or Due Process Clause of the Constitution as long as it was applied equally and fairly without discrimination against interstate commerce. The decision clarified that states could levy taxes on goods brought into their territory from other states, provided they were used or consumed there and not merely passing through en route to another destination.

In the dissenting opinion for Henneford et al. v. Silas Mason Co., Inc. et al., Justice Stone argued that Washington's use tax, which was imposed on goods purchased out-of-state for use within Washington, violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it discriminated against interstate commerce by taxing it more heavily than intrastate commerce. He believed that this tax created an unfair burden on businesses operating across state lines and could potentially lead to retaliatory taxation from other states, thereby disrupting free trade among states - a key purpose of the Commerce Clause in his view.