In the case of Robertson v. Chapman in 1893, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Robertson, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands in Washington D.C., which were previously owned by his deceased relative. He argued that under Maryland law (which applied to this part of Washington at the time when his relative died), he should have inherited these lands as they had not been specifically bequeathed or devised away from him in his relative's will. However, defendant Chapman contested this claim based on an act passed by Congress after the death of Robertson’s relative but before litigation began; it stated that such property would pass according to District of Columbia law instead - where real estate not expressly disposed of by will descends directly to heirs rather than through collateral relatives like himself. The court held for Chapman and against Robertson because it found no constitutional issue with applying new local legislation retrospectively if it did not violate any vested rights or contracts – which was true here since there wasn’t any specific provision made for these properties within the decedent’s will.

In the dissenting opinion for Robertson v. Chapman, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on commercial brokers was incorrect. He believed that this tax violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution because it placed an undue burden on interstate commerce. According to Justice Brewer, commercial brokers were not merely local businesses but were integral parts of larger national and international trade networks. Therefore, taxing them could have far-reaching effects beyond state borders and potentially disrupt these broader economic systems. Furthermore, he contended that such taxes could lead to retaliatory measures from other states or countries which would further harm interstate and international commerce. Thus, in his view, any attempt by a state to impose a tax on these entities should be considered unconstitutional unless specifically authorized by Congress.