In the case of Ingels, Director of the Motor Vehicle Department, et al. v. Morf et al., 1936, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over California's motor vehicle licensing laws and their application to out-of-state vehicles temporarily operating within its borders. The plaintiffs were non-residents who had been fined for not obtaining California licenses for their cars while they were in the state on business or vacation. They argued that this requirement violated both due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and interstate commerce clause protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ingels (representing California), upholding that states have a right to regulate motor vehicles within their boundaries as long as those regulations do not discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce. It was determined that requiring temporary residents to obtain local licenses did not violate these principles because it served legitimate public safety interests such as ensuring drivers are competent and vehicles are safe.

In the dissenting opinion for Ingels, Director of The Motor Vehicle Department, et al. v. Morf et al., Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold California's law requiring all motor vehicles registered in other states to also be registered in California if they were driven within its borders for more than 90 days a year. He argued that this requirement was an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce and violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution by discriminating against non-residents who wished to drive their cars in California temporarily or intermittently throughout the year. Furthermore, he contended that such a rule would lead to absurd results where drivers would have to register their cars multiple times across different states as they traveled through them during vacations or business trips.