In the case of Maryland et al. v. Louisiana, the U.S Supreme Court ruled against a Louisiana law that imposed tax and escrow requirements on natural gas transported through the state from federal offshore drilling areas. The court held that this law violated both the Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause of the Constitution because it interfered with federal authority over interstate commerce and offshore resources. The decision was significant as it affirmed that states cannot enact laws which interfere with or discriminate against interstate commerce, particularly in relation to energy transportation across state lines.

In the dissenting opinion for Maryland et al. v. Louisiana, Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to strike down Louisiana's tax on natural gas as it violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. He argued that this case should not have been decided by original jurisdiction and instead should have gone through lower courts first due to its complexity and importance in state taxation matters. Furthermore, he believed that there was no clear discrimination against interstate commerce because both intrastate and interstate companies were subject to pay this tax equally. The fact that some companies may choose not to do business in Louisiana due to higher costs does not necessarily mean they are being discriminated against; rather, it is a consequence of free market competition where businesses must adapt or face potential losses.