In the case of Lawrence et al. v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding taxation and interstate commerce. The appellants, two corporations engaged in selling gasoline in Mississippi but incorporated elsewhere, argued that their tax assessments were unconstitutional because they violated both due process and equal protection clauses as well as interfered with interstate commerce. They claimed that local businesses received preferential treatment under state law compared to out-of-state companies like themselves. The court rejected these arguments stating that there was no evidence showing discrimination against foreign corporations or interference with interstate commerce by the state's tax laws. It held that states have broad powers to levy taxes for revenue purposes and can do so even if it affects interstate business operations unless such taxation is discriminatory or burdensome beyond what is necessary for fair apportionment among taxpayers within its jurisdiction. Therefore, the court upheld Mississippi’s right to impose its tax scheme on all businesses operating within its borders regardless of where they are incorporated provided it does not discriminate against non-resident entities nor unduly burden interstate trade.

In the dissenting opinion for Lawrence et al. v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on tax exemptions and violated principles of equal protection under law. He contended that there was no rational basis to distinguish between religious organizations based in Mississippi and those located out-of-state when it came to property taxation, as both types served a public purpose by promoting religion within the state. The fact that an organization is incorporated or has its principal place of business outside Mississippi does not make its contribution any less valuable or deserving of exemption from taxation than similar contributions made by domestic corporations, he stated. Therefore, he believed this discriminatory treatment towards out-of-state religious entities was unconstitutional.