In the United States v. New York case of 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over taxation between the federal government and the state of New York. The issue at hand was whether or not certain bonds issued by states were subject to federal tax laws. The State of New York had issued bonds that were exempt from state taxes but did not specify if they were also exempt from federal taxes. When bondholders refused to pay income tax on these bonds, arguing that they should be treated as tax-exempt securities under both state and federal law, it led to this court case. The Supreme Court held in favor of the United States Government stating that while states have powers independent of those granted to Congress, their actions cannot impede upon or conflict with Federal authority where it is constitutionally exercised - including matters related to taxation policy set by Congress for raising revenue necessary for national functions. This decision reinforced principles established earlier in McCulloch v Maryland (1819) about supremacy clause which asserts dominance of Federal law over conflicting State laws when acting within its constitutional limits.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. New York, 1895, it was argued that the federal government did not have exclusive jurisdiction over immigration policy and enforcement. The dissenting justices believed that states should retain some power in this area because of their inherent sovereignty and responsibility to protect public health and welfare. They contended that while Congress has broad powers under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, these do not extend to completely overriding state laws on matters such as immigration control unless there is a clear conflict between state and federal law. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous court rulings which had upheld certain aspects of federal supremacy over immigration but had also acknowledged limits on this authority based on respect for states' rights within our system of dual sovereignty.