In the United States v. Moseley case of 1902, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding taxation and its relation to interstate commerce. The defendant, Moseley, was a ticket agent for several railroads who sold tickets in New York for transportation to various locations outside of the state. He argued that his business should not be subject to local taxes as it constituted interstate commerce which is under federal jurisdiction according to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. However, New York State contended that since he conducted his business within their borders and benefited from local services like police protection and public infrastructure, he should pay taxes accordingly. The Supreme Court sided with New York State ruling that while selling railroad tickets did involve interstate commerce activity; this did not exempt him from paying local taxes because these were levied on his property (the office where he worked), rather than directly taxing his commercial activities per se. This decision clarified an important aspect about how states could tax businesses involved in interstate trade: they can levy property or other indirect taxes even if those businesses are engaged in federally regulated activities.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Moseley, the justice argued that the majority's decision was not in line with previous interpretations of bankruptcy law. He believed that a debtor should be allowed to keep certain property if it is exempt under state laws, even if they have committed fraud against their creditors. The justice stated that this interpretation would better align with Congress' intent when drafting bankruptcy legislation and would provide more protection for debtors who are trying to rebuild their lives after declaring bankruptcy. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that allowing debtors to keep exempt property would encourage fraudulent behavior, arguing instead that there were already sufficient legal mechanisms in place to punish such actions.