In the case of New York State v. Barker in 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving taxation and interstate commerce. The state of New York had imposed a tax on oil storage facilities owned by Barker within its borders. However, Barker argued that this was unconstitutional as it interfered with interstate commerce because some of the oil stored was destined for other states or foreign countries. The court disagreed with Barker's argument and upheld New York’s right to impose such taxes, stating that until goods have actually started moving in trade between states or nations they can be subjected to local regulation and taxation without interfering with Congress' power over commerce among states.

The dissenting opinion in the case of New York State v. Barker argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of constitutional law, particularly regarding double jeopardy and self-incrimination protections. The dissent emphasized that these rights are fundamental to American jurisprudence and should not be undermined by state laws or court rulings. They contended that the defendant had been subjected to multiple prosecutions for the same offense, which is expressly forbidden under the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence from Barker’s previous trial was used against him in his second trial without his consent - an act they viewed as a violation of his right against self-incrimination. In their view, this ruling set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.