In the case of Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miller Brothers, a Delaware-based company that sold goods to customers from neighboring Maryland without collecting use tax on behalf of the state. The court held that due process was violated when Maryland attempted to collect this tax directly from Miller Brothers because there was no sufficient nexus between the state and the out-of-state seller. The court reasoned that while some customers may have used purchased items within their home state (Maryland), it did not automatically establish a connection substantial enough for taxation purposes with an out-of-state retailer like Miller Brothers who had no physical presence or other contacts in Maryland.

In the dissenting opinion for Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, Justice Harold Burton argued that the state of Maryland had a right to impose use tax on goods purchased from an out-of-state retailer and used within its borders. He contended that such taxation did not violate the Due Process Clause or Commerce Clause of the Constitution as it was neither discriminatory nor burdensome to interstate commerce. The majority's decision, he believed, undermined states' rights and their ability to maintain fiscal integrity in light of growing cross-border transactions facilitated by modern transportation and communication technologies. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that physical presence was necessary for imposing tax obligations; instead, he asserted that economic presence should suffice as a basis for taxation jurisdiction.