The U.S. Supreme Court case Hill v. Martin, State Tax Commissioner et al., 1935 revolved around the constitutionality of a tax imposed by the state of Delaware on intangible property held by non-residents. The plaintiff, Mr. Hill, was a resident and citizen of New York who owned bonds issued by corporations incorporated in Delaware but did not have any physical presence or business operations there; he argued that this tax violated his rights under both the Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause of the Constitution. However, the court ruled against him with Justice Cardozo delivering its opinion stating that it is within a state's power to impose taxes on foreign bondholders as long as they are fairly apportioned among those liable for them based on their respective interests in these securities. It further clarified that such taxation does not interfere with interstate commerce nor deprive individuals like Mr.Hill from due process rights because it only applies to income derived from sources within its jurisdiction. Therefore, despite acknowledging potential issues regarding double taxation if other states followed suit (which would be addressed separately), this ruling upheld Delaware's right to levy taxes on out-of-state owners' shares in domestic corporations.

In the dissenting opinion for Hill v. Martin, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it involves a state tax dispute and therefore falls under state law rather than federal law. The dissenting justices believed that the majority's decision to hear this case represented an unwarranted expansion of federal power into areas traditionally reserved for states. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of due process rights, arguing that these rights were not violated by Delaware’s method of assessing taxes on intangible property owned by non-residents. Furthermore, they contended that even if there had been a violation, it would be more appropriate for such disputes to be resolved at a state level rather than being brought before the Supreme Court.