In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. McKean Buchanan, the court was asked to decide whether a state could tax federal property within its borders. At issue in this case was a statute passed by the State of Maryland that imposed an annual tax on all vessels registered under federal law and owned by citizens of Maryland or corporations chartered in that state. The government argued that such taxation violated Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants Congress exclusive authority over interstate commerce and navigation. In addition, they argued it interfered with their power to regulate foreign trade as well as their ability to raise revenue for national purposes through duties on imports and exports. After considering both sides’ arguments, the Supreme Court held unanimously that states do not have any right to impose taxes upon federally-owned property located within their boundaries because doing so would be inconsistent with Congressional powers granted under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

In the case of The United States v. McKean Buchanan, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted certiorari to review this case because it was already decided by a previous court and did not involve any federal question or constitutional issue. He further stated that if the Court had taken jurisdiction over this matter, then they would be setting an unwelcome precedent for future cases involving state law matters. Additionally, Taney noted that there were no errors made in either party's argument before the lower court and thus there was nothing for them to review on appeal. Ultimately, he concluded that granting certiorari would be inappropriate as it could lead to unnecessary delays in resolving disputes between parties due to appeals being filed with little merit or legal basis behind them.