In the case of Rothschild v. Knight (1901), the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a New York law that allowed for the seizure and sale of imported goods, which were still in their original packaging, by creditors to pay off debts owed by importers was constitutional. The plaintiff argued that this violated federal tariff laws designed to protect importers from such seizures until after they had an opportunity to sell those goods themselves. However, Justice Rufus W. Peckham delivered the unanimous opinion of the court rejecting this argument on behalf of defendant Knight who seized Rothschild's imported silk under state law as a creditor due unpaid rent arrears. The court held that federal tariff laws did not preempt state lien and attachment laws like New York’s; therefore, these types of seizures were permissible even if it meant potentially disrupting commerce or causing financial loss for importers before they could sell their goods domestically.

In the dissenting opinion for Rothschild v. Knight, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law taxing out-of-state bonds was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Supreme Court. He contended that such taxes were unconstitutional because they interfered with interstate commerce and violated citizens' rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, he believed this ruling would lead to unfair treatment of bondholders who lived outside of a given state but held bonds within it, as they could be subjected to double taxation - once by their home state and again by the state in which their bonds were held. This, he claimed, was an unjust burden on those engaging in interstate investment activities.