In Texas Transportation Co v. Seeligson, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state law that prohibited the transportation of certain goods across state lines was constitutional. The case involved a dispute between the Texas Transportation Company and the Seeligson Brothers, who owned a store in Texas. The Seeligson Brothers had purchased goods from the Texas Transportation Company and had them shipped across state lines. The state of Texas had passed a law prohibiting the transportation of certain goods across state lines, and the Seeligson Brothers were charged with violating the law. The Supreme Court held that the state law was unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court reasoned that the law interfered with interstate commerce and was therefore an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. The Court also held that the law was an unconstitutional infringement on the right of the Seeligson Brothers to engage in interstate commerce. The Court's decision in Texas Transportation Co v. Seeligson established that states cannot pass laws that interfere with interstate commerce. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important precedent in the area of interstate commerce.

In Texas Transportation Co v. Seeligson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that imposed a tax on railroad companies for their gross receipts from freight and passenger transportation violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The majority of justices held that the law did not violate this clause because it only applied to intrastate commerce, while Justice Field dissented. He argued that although the tax may have been limited to intrastate commerce, its effect would be felt in interstate commerce as well since railroads are an integral part of national transportation networks and any increase in cost due to taxation would ultimately be passed on through higher prices charged for goods shipped across state lines. Furthermore, he noted that if states were allowed to impose such taxes without restriction then they could effectively control or even prevent interstate trade by making it too expensive for businesses operating within them.