The U.S. Supreme Court case Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, Tax Commissioner of Ohio in 1944 revolved around the issue of whether goods manufactured in the Philippines and sold in Ohio could be taxed by the state as imports under its use tax law or if they were exempt due to being from a territory of the United States. The court ruled 6-3 that such goods were not subject to taxation because at that time, according to federal law, products made in U.S territories and shipped for sale within any part of the country are considered domestic commerce rather than foreign importation; hence they should not be subjected to state taxes intended for imported goods only.

In the dissenting opinion for Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, Justice Rutledge argued that Ohio's tax did not violate the Import-Export Clause of the Constitution because it was a property tax and not an import duty or impost. He contended that there is no constitutional prohibition against states taxing imported goods once they have become part of general mass of property in the state, even if they are still in their original package. The majority’s interpretation would lead to absurd results where imported goods could be exempt from taxation indefinitely simply by keeping them in their original packages, which he believed was never intended by framers of constitution. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority’s reliance on Brown v Maryland (1827), arguing that this case had been misinterpreted over time and its principles were outdated due to changes in economic conditions since 19th century.