In the case of Home Insurance and Trust Company v. Tennessee for the Use of Memphis, 1895, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving tax laws in Tennessee. The state had imposed taxes on insurance companies operating within its borders but not headquartered there. The Home Insurance and Trust Company, based out of New York but conducting business in Tennessee, argued that this was discriminatory and violated their rights under both the Equal Protection Clause and Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution. The court disagreed with these claims. It held that states have broad powers to regulate businesses within their jurisdiction as long as they do not violate federal law or constitutional protections against discrimination between residents and non-residents. In this case, it found no such violation existed because all insurance companies were taxed equally regardless of where they were headquartered. Furthermore, regarding interstate commerce concerns raised by Home Insurance & Trust Co., it was determined that insurance transactions did not constitute "commerce" per se since policies are mere contracts promising indemnity against loss rather than goods being transported across state lines for trade purposes. Therefore, taxation by Tennessee did not interfere with Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce nor discriminate unfairly against out-of-state corporations.

In the dissenting opinion for Home Insurance and Trust Company v. Tennessee for the Use of Memphis, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's ruling was inconsistent with previous decisions by the Court regarding interstate commerce regulation. He contended that it was not within a state's power to impose taxes on out-of-state insurance companies conducting business within its borders because such taxation interfered with interstate commerce. According to him, this contradicted earlier rulings where states were prohibited from taxing goods in transit between states or imposing license fees on non-resident commercial travelers selling goods within their territory. Furthermore, he asserted that if each state could tax foreign corporations doing business in their jurisdiction at will, it would lead to an unfair burden on those corporations and hinder free trade among states.