The Schlesinger v. Wisconsin case in 1925 revolved around the constitutionality of a state inheritance tax law. The plaintiffs, executors of an estate, argued that the State of Wisconsin's inheritance tax was unconstitutional as it violated both due process and equal protection clauses under the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that this law unfairly taxed intangible personal property (stocks and bonds) held by non-residents if these assets were part of a business operating within the state. However, the Supreme Court upheld Wisconsin's right to levy such taxes on grounds that states have broad powers to impose taxes unless they infringe upon federal jurisdiction or violate specific constitutional protections - neither condition being met in this instance according to their judgment. Thus, despite plaintiff’s objections regarding potential for double taxation (by both home-state and Wisconsin), court maintained such issues should be addressed through reciprocal legislation among states rather than judicial intervention.

In the dissenting opinion for Schlesinger et al., Executors, Etc., v. Wisconsin et al., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court and violated principles of federalism by interfering with a state's right to tax its own citizens as it sees fit. He disagreed with their interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, asserting that there is no constitutional prohibition against states taxing intangible property located within their borders at higher rates than tangible property or intangible property located elsewhere. Furthermore, he contended that if such discrimination did exist in this case, it would be up to Congress rather than the courts to correct it through legislation.