In the case of Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen et al., 1943, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state could impose a tax on an out-of-state company for business conducted within its borders, even if that business only involved interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Union Brokerage Co., argued that such taxation violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which prohibits states from interfering with interstate commerce. However, in this case, Nebraska had imposed a tax on Union Brokerage for selling livestock feed additives to farmers within its borders despite being based in Iowa and conducting all sales through mail order or telephone calls without any physical presence in Nebraska. The court ruled against Union Brokerage stating that while states cannot interfere with interstate commerce directly by imposing taxes or regulations specifically aimed at it; they can indirectly affect it through generally applicable laws like those requiring businesses operating within their borders to pay taxes regardless of where they are headquartered.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen et al., 1943, argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and an intrusion into state sovereignty. The dissenters believed that the court overstepped its bounds by interpreting Nebraska’s laws to fit their own views rather than deferring to the interpretation given by Nebraska’s highest court - which had ruled in favor of Jensen. They contended that it is not within federal jurisdiction to reinterpret state legislation or overturn decisions made by state courts on matters concerning local affairs and administration unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights, which they did not believe was present in this case.