In the Northern Coal & Dock Company et al. v. Strand et al., 1928, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute over property rights and taxation in Minnesota. The plaintiffs, Northern Coal & Dock Company and others, were corporations that owned ore-bearing lands in St Louis County, Minnesota which they leased to mining companies for extraction of iron ore. They argued that their properties had been unfairly assessed by tax authorities at an excessive value compared to other non-ore bearing lands within the same county leading to higher taxes imposed upon them. The defendants were various state officials responsible for assessing property values for tax purposes including Strand who served as State Auditor of Minnesota at the time. The court ruled against the plaintiffs stating that there was no violation of due process or equal protection under law as claimed by them since all real estate within a taxing district is subject to uniform rate without regard to its use or productivity. Therefore, it held that differences in valuation between ore-bearing land and non-ore bearing land did not constitute discrimination but rather reflected inherent differences between these types of properties.

In the dissenting opinion for Northern Coal & Dock Company et al. v. Strand et al., it was argued that the Minnesota statute, which allowed a lien on coal upon its arrival in Duluth harbor, did not violate due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S Constitution as claimed by appellants. The dissenting justices believed that this case should be viewed from a broader perspective and consider other factors such as public policy and economic realities rather than just focusing on legal technicalities about property rights and jurisdictional boundaries. They contended that since coal is an essential commodity with significant societal importance, states have legitimate interests to regulate its distribution to ensure fair business practices and protect consumers' welfare. Therefore, they disagreed with majority's ruling invalidating Minnesota law because they saw no constitutional infringement but only state's rightful exercise of police power for common good.