In the 1891 case of Robertson v. Salomon, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a New York law that allowed for the seizure and sale of imported goods due to unpaid rent violated federal laws governing customs duties. The case arose when Mr. Salomon's landlord, Mr. Robertson, seized his tenant's imported goods because he had not paid his rent on time; these items were subsequently sold at auction to cover this debt. The court ruled in favor of Salomon, stating that once an importer has paid their customs duties and taken possession of their goods from custom officials' custody - as was true in this instance - those items are no longer subject to any lien for rent under state law unless such a lien is expressly authorized by Congress. This decision reinforced the supremacy clause found within Article VI of the Constitution which establishes federal law as "the supreme Law of the Land," thus preventing states from interfering with federally regulated activities or transactions without explicit Congressional approval.

In the dissenting opinion for Robertson v. Salomon, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on distilled spirits was incorrect. He contended that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated principles of equal protection and due process under law as outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment. According to him, this taxation unfairly targeted certain businesses while exempting others from similar obligations, thereby creating an unjust system of economic regulation. Furthermore, he believed that such arbitrary and discriminatory taxation could potentially lead to corruption within government institutions by encouraging favoritism towards particular industries or corporations over others. Thus, he disagreed with his colleagues' interpretation of constitutional provisions related to taxation powers and advocated for a more equitable approach towards fiscal policy-making.