In the United States v. West Virginia et al., 1934, the U.S. Supreme Court was called upon to resolve a dispute over taxation between the federal government and several states. The case centered on whether or not certain lands owned by the United States in these states could be subjected to state property taxes. The court ruled that such lands were immune from state taxation under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over all places purchased for forts, magazines, arsenals and other needful buildings with consent of legislature of respective states where they are located. This decision affirmed that while individual citizens may own land within a state's borders and be subject to its tax laws; when it comes to federally-owned properties used for public purposes like national parks or military bases - those areas fall under federal jurisdiction only.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. West Virginia et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to allow federal intervention in a state dispute over water rights. He argued that this case was fundamentally about property rights, which should be resolved at the state level rather than by the federal government. Furthermore, he contended that there was no clear evidence of harm or potential harm to interstate commerce as a result of West Virginia’s actions, and thus no justification for federal involvement under its Commerce Clause powers. In his view, allowing such intervention set a dangerous precedent for future cases and could undermine states' sovereignty over their own resources.