In the 1907 case of Shoener v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law that required coal companies to pay for damages caused by subsidence due to mining activities. The plaintiff, a coal company owner named Shoener, argued that this law was unconstitutional as it violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. However, the court disagreed with him stating that states have broad powers in regulating businesses within their borders especially when public welfare is at stake. It further stated that there was no violation of equal protection since all individuals similarly situated (i.e., other coal mine owners) were treated equally under this law; nor did it violate due process because property could be regulated or even taken away without compensation if necessary for public safety or health reasons.

In the dissenting opinion for Shoener v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under law. He contended that by allowing Pennsylvania to tax out-of-state bonds at a higher rate than in-state bonds, it unfairly discriminated against citizens who chose to invest their money outside of Pennsylvania. This was particularly problematic because many people invested in out-of-state bonds due to their perceived safety and reliability compared with local investments. By imposing this discriminatory tax, he believed that Pennsylvania was essentially penalizing its citizens for making prudent financial decisions based on market conditions rather than geographic location. Furthermore, he asserted that such taxation could potentially discourage interstate commerce and investment if other states followed suit.