The U.S. Supreme Court case City of New Brunswick et al. v. United States et al., 1927, revolved around a dispute over the valuation and taxation of property owned by the federal government in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The city had assessed taxes on this property based on its full market value but the federal government argued that it should only be taxed based on its depreciated value due to wear and tear over time. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government, stating that depreciation must be taken into account when assessing taxes for properties used for public purposes as these properties are not held with profit-making intent like private entities might hold their assets.

The dissenting opinion in the case of CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK et al. v. UNITED STATES et al., 1927, argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of constitutional law and an unwarranted extension of federal power over state affairs. The dissenters contended that the Commerce Clause did not grant Congress unlimited authority to regulate all aspects of interstate commerce, but only those which directly affected it. They believed that this interpretation was consistent with previous court rulings and necessary to maintain a balance between federal and state powers under our system of dual sovereignty. In their view, the regulation at issue - concerning local rates for electricity - had only an indirect effect on interstate commerce and thus fell outside Congress' regulatory reach under the Commerce Clause.