The U.S. Supreme Court case McKesson Corporation v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation of Florida, et al., 1989 revolved around the issue of whether a state is required to provide procedural safeguards when it imposes a tax that may be unconstitutional under federal law. The court ruled in favor of McKesson Corporation, stating that if a state levies an unlawful discriminatory tax, taxpayers must have some form of opportunity for predeprivation relief or postpayment refund. In this case, Florida had imposed higher taxes on out-of-state liquors than those produced within the state - violating the Commerce Clause which prohibits states from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. Therefore, since there was no provision allowing for refunds in cases where taxes were found to be unlawfully discriminatory (as they were here), the State's taxing scheme was deemed unconstitutional.

In the dissenting opinion for McKesson Corporation v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation of Florida et al., Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was an unwarranted expansion of judicial power into areas traditionally reserved for legislative bodies. He contended that it is not within the purview or competence of courts to dictate how states should refund taxes collected under unconstitutional statutes. Instead, he believed this responsibility falls squarely on state legislatures who are better equipped to make such decisions in line with their respective fiscal policies and administrative capabilities. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on principles from private law (like unjust enrichment) as a basis for constitutional adjudication - arguing that these principles do not translate well into public law context where considerations extend beyond individual equities to include broader societal interests.