In the case of MORF v. BINGAMAN, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE FOR NEW MEXICO (1935), Morf challenged New Mexico's tax law on grounds that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The issue arose from a state statute imposing an annual license tax on chain stores operating within its borders. Morf owned and operated several retail grocery stores in Albuquerque under one management and control but was taxed differently based on each store's location rather than as a single entity. He argued this constituted discrimination against interstate commerce and denied him equal protection of laws. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bingaman, upholding New Mexico's right to impose different taxes for different locations within the state even if they were part of the same business operation or chain store system. It found no violation of either interstate commerce principles or equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because states have broad discretion to classify businesses for taxation purposes so long as there is reasonable basis for such classification.

In the dissenting opinion for MORF v. BINGAMAN, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold New Mexico's tax on out-of-state corporations violated both the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution. The dissent contended that this tax unfairly burdened interstate commerce by imposing a higher rate on foreign corporations than domestic ones, thereby creating an unjustifiable barrier to trade between states. Furthermore, they asserted that this discriminatory taxation scheme deprived these companies of their property without due process of law because it did not bear a reasonable relation to any services provided by New Mexico or benefits conferred upon them by the state. Therefore, in their view, such differential treatment based solely on corporate domicile was unconstitutional and should have been struck down.