In the 1895 case of Lowe v. Kansas, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property tax assessments. The plaintiff, Lowe, was an out-of-state resident who owned bonds issued by various counties in Kansas. These bonds were secured by mortgages on real estate located within those counties. However, despite not residing in or having any other personal property in Kansas aside from these bonds and mortgages, Lowe was assessed for taxes on them as if they were tangible personal property situated within the state. Lowe challenged this assessment arguing that it violated his rights under both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution because he had no actual presence or domicile in Kansas. The Supreme Court disagreed with Lowe's argument ruling that states have broad power to levy taxes and can do so even against non-residents who own intangible properties such as stocks or bonds tied to assets within their borders without violating constitutional protections.

The dissenting opinion in Lowe v. Kansas argued that the state law under scrutiny, which prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors except for medicinal, scientific and mechanical purposes, was unconstitutional as it violated the commerce clause by interfering with interstate trade. The justice contended that once goods have been brought into a state and become part of its general mass of property, they should be subject to local laws. However, this case involved liquor transported from another state intended for immediate delivery to consumers within Kansas without becoming part of the general mass of property in the state. Therefore, according to him, such transactions constituted interstate commerce and were beyond the reach of local regulations or prohibitions unless sanctioned by Congress. He also pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and previous court decisions on similar issues involving other states' regulatory powers over imported goods.