In the case of Smith v. McCullough et al., 1925, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mineral rights in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Smith, claimed that he had purchased land from an individual who was part Native American and therefore exempt from certain taxes under federal law. However, after purchasing the property, Smith discovered that there were outstanding tax liens against it which had been imposed by state authorities prior to his purchase. He argued these should be nullified due to the previous owner's status as a Native American. The defendants in this case were county officials who insisted on collecting these back taxes before they would recognize Smith's claim to own not only surface rights but also subsurface mineral rights associated with this parcel of land. The court ultimately sided with McCullough et al., ruling that while federal laws did indeed exempt certain properties owned by Native Americans from taxation at both state and local levels; however those exemptions ceased once such properties changed hands through sale or inheritance into non-Native ownerships like Mr.Smith’s situation.

In the dissenting opinion for Smith v. McCullough, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Maryland law that required all out-of-state corporations to obtain a special license before conducting business within its borders. He argued that this law violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution by discriminating against interstate commerce and favoring local businesses over their out-of-state counterparts. Furthermore, he contended that such protectionist measures were not only unconstitutional but also economically detrimental as they stifled competition and hindered economic growth in both states involved in interstate trade. In his view, it was imperative for courts to strike down laws like these so as not to allow individual states' parochial interests override national interest in promoting free trade among them.