In the Norton Company v. Department of Revenue of Illinois case in 1950, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a state could impose a use tax on goods manufactured outside its borders but used within them. The Norton Company, based in Massachusetts, had shipped abrasive grinding wheels to customers in Illinois without charging sales tax because they were made out-of-state. However, Illinois imposed a use tax on these items and demanded payment from Norton. The company argued that this was unconstitutional as it interfered with interstate commerce. The Supreme Court disagreed with Norton's argument and upheld the constitutionality of the use tax. They reasoned that since an equivalent sales tax would have been valid if the goods were produced within Illinois, it was also fair to apply a similar charge for out-of-state products used within its jurisdiction - ensuring equal treatment between local and foreign manufacturers selling their products in Illinois. This ruling clarified states' rights regarding taxation policies related to interstate commerce under U.S law.

In the dissenting opinion for Norton Company v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to uphold Illinois' tax on Norton Company violated the Commerce Clause by burdening interstate commerce. He contended that while states have a right to levy taxes, they should not do so in a way that discriminates against or unduly burdens interstate commerce. In this case, he believed that taxing an out-of-state company like Norton was discriminatory and placed an unfair burden on it simply because it conducted business across state lines. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that there was no substantial difference between manufacturing within and outside of Illinois; instead arguing such differences were significant enough to warrant different treatment under taxation laws. Ultimately, Justice Frankfurter concluded his dissent by expressing concern over potential negative impacts this ruling could have on national economic unity.