In Ingersoll v. Bourne, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could impose a tax on the income of a non-resident. The case involved a dispute between the state of New York and a resident of Massachusetts, Charles Ingersoll. Ingersoll had received income from a New York corporation and was assessed a tax by the state of New York. Ingersoll argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause did not prohibit a state from taxing the income of a non-resident. The Court noted that the tax was imposed on the income of a non-resident, not on the non-resident himself. The Court also noted that the tax was imposed on the income of a non-resident who had received income from a corporation located in the state of New York. The Court concluded that the tax was a valid exercise of the state's power to tax and did not violate the Due Process Clause.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Ingersoll v. Bourne, a case concerning the power of Congress to regulate commerce between states. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to pass legislation regulating interstate commerce and that such regulation was reserved for state legislatures. He further contended that if Congress were allowed to exercise this power, it would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority from one branch of government (the legislature) to another (the executive). Finally, he argued that even if there were some constitutional basis for federal regulation of interstate commerce, this particular law did not meet those requirements because it imposed too great a burden on businesses engaged in interstate trade without providing any real benefit or protection for consumers or producers.