The U.S. Supreme Court case New Orleans Debenture Redemption Company v. Louisiana in 1900 revolved around the issue of whether a state could tax federal bonds under its jurisdiction. The State of Louisiana had imposed taxes on the New Orleans Debenture Redemption Company for holding United States bonds, which was contested by the company as unconstitutional based on Article VI of the Constitution that states federal law is supreme over state laws and regulations. The court ruled in favor of Louisiana, stating that while it's true that states cannot directly tax instruments or means employed by the government to carry out its constitutional powers, this principle does not extend to protect private parties from taxation when they invest their capital in these securities. Therefore, it held that a state can impose taxes on individuals or corporations within its jurisdiction who hold such bonds without infringing upon any constitutional provision.

The dissenting opinion in the case of New Orleans Debenture Redemption Company v. Louisiana argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to recognize a fundamental principle of constitutional law: that states cannot interfere with contracts or property rights without due process. The dissenting justices believed that by allowing Louisiana to levy taxes on bonds issued by the New Orleans Debenture Redemption Company, even though these bonds were exempt from taxation under an earlier agreement between the company and state, constituted such interference. They contended this violated both contract clause and due process clause protections enshrined in Constitution. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of previous court rulings related to similar issues as well as their understanding about nature and scope of tax exemptions granted through legislative acts.