In the case of Rodman v. Pothier, 1923, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving federal and state jurisdiction over bankruptcy proceedings. The plaintiff was a U.S. Marshal who had seized property from a bankrupt individual under orders from a federal court in Rhode Island to satisfy creditors' claims. However, before he could sell it off, the defendant - Mayor Pothier of Woonsocket - intervened and claimed that local taxes were owed on this property and should be paid first before any other debts are settled. The key issue here was whether federal or state law took precedence in such matters: did the marshal have to obey his instructions from the federal court or did he need to respect local tax laws? In its decision, the Supreme Court sided with Mayor Pothier; ruling that while bankruptcy proceedings are indeed governed by national legislation (the Bankruptcy Act), this does not mean they can override all aspects of state law – particularly when it comes to collecting due taxes. This case thus set an important precedent for how conflicts between different levels of government authority should be resolved within America's complex legal system.

In the dissenting opinion for Rodman v. Pothier, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed Rhode Island to tax federal property. He argued that this was in direct violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that federal law supersedes state law when there is conflict between them. In his view, allowing a state to impose taxes on federal property undermines this principle and could potentially lead to situations where states interfere with or obstruct federal operations through taxation policies. Furthermore, he contended that such an interpretation would create inconsistencies in how different types of federally-owned properties are treated under tax laws across various states.