In the 1934 case of Motlow v. State Ex Rel. Koeln, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over taxes on whiskey distilleries in Tennessee. The state had imposed an excise tax on all distilled spirits produced within its borders, which was challenged by Jack Daniel's Distillery (owned by Lem Motlow). They argued that this tax violated both the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution as it discriminated against interstate commerce and created unequal taxation among businesses in similar industries respectively. However, the court ruled against them stating that states have broad powers to levy taxes for revenue purposes unless they clearly infringe upon federal authority or constitutional protections. In this instance, since there was no evidence showing discrimination against out-of-state goods or arbitrary classification under equal protection clause, their claim failed.

In the dissenting opinion for Motlow v. State Ex Rel. Koeln, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring all voters in primary elections to swear an oath of allegiance to support party nominees in general elections violated constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed this requirement infringed upon individual freedom and political liberty, as it forced individuals into supporting candidates they may not agree with or face disenfranchisement. They contended that such a mandate could lead to corruption and manipulation within political parties by limiting competition and discouraging independent thought among voters. Furthermore, they asserted that while states have broad powers over their electoral processes, these should not extend so far as to infringe on fundamental democratic principles like free choice in voting.