In the case of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Kentucky in 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving taxation and interstate commerce. The state of Kentucky had imposed taxes on the railroad company for its use of tracks that crossed into other states. The railroad company argued that this was an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce as it violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) of the United States Constitution which gives Congress exclusive power over such matters. The court disagreed with the railroad's argument and upheld Kentucky's right to tax property within its borders even if it is used for interstate commerce purposes. It stated that while regulation of interstate trade falls under federal jurisdiction, this does not exempt businesses involved in such trade from local taxation or prevent states from exercising their taxing powers so long as they do not interfere directly with commercial activities between states. This decision reinforced principles established by earlier rulings like Cooley v Board Wardens (1851), where certain aspects were deemed to be within state control unless explicitly regulated by Congress - thus allowing some level of concurrent jurisdiction between federal and state governments over issues related to commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Kentucky, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of constitutional law. He contended that states should have the power to regulate commerce within their borders and protect public interests without interference from federal authorities unless there is clear conflict with national policy or legislation. The justice believed this case did not present such a conflict, as Congress had not legislated on railroad rates at that time. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's view that state regulation of intrastate rail fares constituted an undue burden on interstate commerce. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative implications of this ruling for state sovereignty and regulatory powers in other areas beyond railway transportation.