In the case Pearson v. McGraw et al., 1939, the US Supreme Court examined whether Oregon's inheritance tax law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dispute arose when a resident of Washington died, leaving property in both Washington and Oregon to his heirs. While his will was probated in Washington, it also had ancillary administration in Oregon for assets located there. Under Oregon law at that time, an inheritance tax was levied on all property within its jurisdiction belonging to a deceased person regardless of their residence status during life. The executors of the estate argued that this taxation infringed upon their due process rights as it taxed properties already subjected to similar taxes by another state (Washington). However, after careful consideration and review of previous cases such as Frick v Pennsylvania (1925), where double taxation did not violate constitutional rights if each state only taxed properties within its borders; Justice Roberts delivered the court’s unanimous decision upholding Oregon's right to impose an inheritance tax on estates with assets located within its boundaries even if those same assets were subject to similar taxes elsewhere.

In the dissenting opinion for Pearson v. McGraw, Justice Black argued that Oregon's inheritance tax law did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that states have a right to levy taxes on property within their jurisdiction and this includes intangible personal properties like stocks or bonds, regardless of where they are physically located. The majority ruling held that Oregon could not tax shares in an Ohio corporation owned by an Oregon resident at his death because those shares were considered to be located in Ohio. However, Justice Black disagreed with this interpretation and believed it was based on outdated legal principles from a time when physical location mattered more than it does today in our interconnected economy. He also pointed out inconsistencies between this case and previous cases involving similar issues which he felt undermined the Court's decision.