In the 1944 case of Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. v. Read, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lincoln National Life Insurance Company against Oklahoma's insurance commissioner and others. The dispute arose when Oklahoma imposed a retaliatory tax on out-of-state insurers if their home state imposed higher taxes or penalties than those levied by Oklahoma itself. Lincoln, an Indiana-based company, argued that this violated the Equal Protection Clause and Commerce Clause of the Constitution as it discriminated against interstate commerce by imposing heavier burdens on out-of-state companies compared to local ones. The court agreed with Lincoln's argument stating that while states have power to regulate insurance businesses within their borders, they cannot discriminate against foreign corporations through taxation policies which violate constitutional principles such as equal protection under law and free trade among states.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. v. Read, argued that Oklahoma's law requiring out-of-state insurance companies to maintain reserves equal to those required by their home state was not unconstitutional. The justice disagreed with the majority's view that this law violated the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the U.S Constitution, arguing instead that it was a legitimate exercise of state power aimed at protecting policyholders within its jurisdiction from potential insolvency risks posed by under-reserved insurers. The justice also contended that there was no undue burden on interstate commerce as all insurers were treated equally regardless of their origin; they only needed to meet either Oklahoma’s or their own home state’s reserve requirements - whichever is higher.