In the 1898 case of New York State v. Roberts, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving taxation and interstate commerce. The defendant, Mr. Roberts, was an agent for non-New York insurance companies who sold policies in New York state without paying taxes that were required by state law for out-of-state insurers operating within its borders. He argued this tax violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which prohibits states from interfering with interstate commerce. The court disagreed with Mr.Roberts' argument and upheld his conviction under New York law. It held that insurance transactions did not constitute "commerce" as defined by federal law or constitutional interpretation at that time; therefore they could be regulated (and taxed) by individual states without violating any provisions of the US Constitution regarding interstate trade. This decision affirmed states’ rights to regulate and tax certain types of business activities conducted within their boundaries even when those businesses are based elsewhere - so long as such regulation does not interfere with Congress's power over interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for New York State v. Roberts, it was argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to a lack of proper legal representation during his trial. The dissenting justices believed that every individual has a right to be represented by counsel in court, regardless of their ability to pay for such services. They contended that this is an essential component of ensuring fair trials and upholding justice within the American judicial system. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential abuses of power if individuals are not adequately protected by legal representation when facing criminal charges. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority ruling which upheld Robert's conviction despite his lack than adequate defense at trial.