In the 1909 case of Louisiana ex rel. Hubert, Receiver, v. Mayor and Council of the City of New Orleans, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property tax assessments in New Orleans. The city had assessed taxes on certain properties based on their value as improved land rather than unimproved land. This was challenged by Hubert who argued that this violated state law which required all property to be assessed at its cash value without regard for improvements made upon it. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that while Louisiana's constitution did require uniformity in taxation, it did not specify how such uniformity should be achieved or what factors could be considered when assessing property values for tax purposes. Therefore, it was within the discretion of local authorities to assess taxes based on improved values if they believed this would result in more equitable distribution of tax burdens.

In the dissenting opinion for Louisiana ex rel. Hubert, Receiver v. Mayor and Council of the City of New Orleans, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that a city ordinance was unconstitutional because it interfered with interstate commerce by requiring all cotton to be compressed within city limits before exportation. He argued that this requirement did not necessarily interfere with interstate trade as it could also promote efficiency in handling goods for transport. Furthermore, he contended that states should have some regulatory power over local matters even if they touch upon areas typically governed by federal law such as interstate commerce. According to him, there is no absolute rule against state regulation just because an activity involves or affects more than one state; rather each case must be evaluated on its own merits considering both national and local interests involved.