In the case of Mallett v. North Carolina in 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving taxation and interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Mallett, was a resident of New York who owned shares in several North Carolina corporations. He argued that his out-of-state residency exempted him from paying taxes on dividends earned from these corporations under the Interstate Commerce Act. However, North Carolina law required all shareholders to pay tax regardless of their place of residence. The Supreme Court sided with North Carolina, ruling that this form of taxation did not interfere with interstate commerce as claimed by Mallett. The court held that states have the right to tax income generated within their borders even if it is paid to non-residents or foreign entities. This decision reinforced state rights over corporate taxation and clarified how such laws interact with federal regulations governing interstate trade.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Mallett v. North Carolina argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting African Americans from serving as jurors was fundamentally unjust and contrary to the principles of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent emphasized that this exclusion based on race not only denied African American citizens their constitutional rights, but also undermined public confidence in judicial proceedings by creating racially biased juries. It further contended that such discrimination perpetuated harmful stereotypes about racial inferiority and unfitness for civic duties, which were inconsistent with modern understandings of equality and citizenship. Therefore, it concluded that any law enforcing racial segregation or discrimination should be deemed unconstitutional.