In the 1892 case, The City of New York v. Miln, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a law enacted by New York State that required shipmasters to report on the health and legal status of their passengers. George Miln had failed to comply with this law after his ship arrived from a foreign port and was subsequently fined. He challenged this fine arguing that it violated both federal commerce laws and international treaties. The court upheld the state's right to enact such legislation under its police powers - those rights reserved for states related to public safety, health, welfare, etc., ruling that they were not superseded by federal commercial regulations or international agreements. This decision affirmed states' rights over certain aspects of immigration control during an era when large numbers of immigrants were entering through ports like New York.

The dissenting opinion in the City of New York case of 1892 argued that the city had no right to impose a tax on stock transfers. The justices who dissented believed that this was an infringement upon interstate commerce, which is protected by the Constitution. They contended that stocks are personal property and thus should not be subject to taxation by individual states or cities. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how such taxes were applied, with some transactions being exempt based on arbitrary criteria. This, they argued, violated principles of equal protection under law as well as due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. In their view, it was unconstitutional for local jurisdictions like New York City to levy taxes on activities taking place beyond their borders and involving entities over which they have no jurisdictional control.