In the case of Provident Savings Life Assurance Society v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 1915, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state could tax an out-of-state insurance company on premiums collected within that state. The Provident Savings Life Assurance Society, based in Ohio but operating in Kentucky, argued that such taxation violated both the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution. However, upon review, it was determined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court (9-0), that these taxes did not violate either clause as they were levied only on business conducted within Kentucky's borders and thus fell under its jurisdictional authority. This decision upheld states' rights to regulate commerce occurring within their boundaries while also affirming their ability to levy taxes against businesses operating therein regardless of where those businesses are headquartered.

In the dissenting opinion for Provident Savings Life Assurance Society v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on out-of-state insurance companies violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices contended that this taxation unfairly targeted non-resident corporations and placed an undue burden on interstate commerce. They believed that such discriminatory practices were unconstitutional as they impeded free trade among states and infringed upon federal authority over interstate commerce. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential retaliation from other states which could lead to economic protectionism detrimental to national unity and prosperity.