The Schoenfeld v. Hendricks case in 1893 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of an import tax law. The plaintiff, Schoenfeld, imported goods from Germany and was charged with a duty by the defendant, Hendricks who was a customs collector. Schoenfeld argued that according to the tariff act of October 1st, 1890 (also known as McKinley Tariff), his goods should have been free from any duties since they were made entirely out of metal and glass which were not specifically mentioned in the act's list for taxable items. However, Hendricks insisted on charging him based on another clause within this same Act which imposed taxes on "all manufactures or productions not specially enumerated or provided for". The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hendrick’s interpretation stating that although metal and glass are indeed unenumerated materials under this Act; however when combined together to form new articles such as those imported by Schoenfeld they become subject to taxation under said clause.

The dissenting opinion in the Schoenfeld v. Hendricks case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of the Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that a state should not have the power to regulate interstate commerce, as this authority is granted exclusively to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They contended that New Jersey's law requiring out-of-state insurance companies to maintain an office within its borders constituted such regulation, infringing upon federal jurisdiction over interstate commerce matters. Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly "commerce" had been defined by their colleagues in order for it to encompass insurance transactions; traditionally, these were considered contracts rather than trade activities falling under commercial regulations.