Meyer v. Pritchard was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could require a non-resident to pay a tax on the sale of real estate located within the state. The Court held that a state could not impose such a tax on a non-resident, as it would be an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. The case arose when the state of Missouri attempted to impose a tax on the sale of real estate located within the state by a non-resident. The non-resident, Meyer, challenged the tax as an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. The Supreme Court agreed with Meyer, holding that the tax was an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. The Court reasoned that the tax would place an undue burden on non-residents, as they would be required to pay a tax on property located in another state. The Court also noted that the tax would discourage non-residents from engaging in interstate commerce, as they would be subject to a tax on property located in another state. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of Missouri could not impose a tax on the sale of real estate located within the state by a non-resident. The Court reasoned that such a tax would be an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce, as it would place an undue burden on non-residents and discourage them from engaging in interstate commerce.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Meyer v. Pritchard, a case concerning the constitutionality of an Indiana statute that allowed for a lien to be placed on property owned by married women. He argued that while it was true that states had broad authority over matters related to marriage and domestic relations, this particular law went too far because it violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In his view, allowing such liens would strip married women of their right to own and control their own property without any legal recourse or protection from state interference. Furthermore, he noted that since these laws were not applied equally across all citizens - as only married women were subject to them - they could not be considered valid under equal protection principles either. Ultimately, Justice Harlan concluded that this law should have been struck down as unconstitutional because it deprived people of life, liberty and property without due process of law in violation of both federal and state constitutions.