In the Warner v. New Orleans case of 1896, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving taxation and property rights. The plaintiff, Mrs. Warner, owned several properties in New Orleans that were leased to various tenants. The city assessed taxes on these properties based not only on their value but also including the rent collected from them as income for Mrs. Warner - effectively taxing her twice for the same asset. Mrs.Warner argued this was unconstitutional under both state law and federal due process protections against double jeopardy (being punished twice for one offense). However, she lost at trial and appealed to Louisiana's supreme court which upheld the lower court's decision. The U.S Supreme Court reversed this ruling unanimously finding it violated constitutional principles of fairness by imposing multiple tax burdens on single pieces of property without clear legislative intent or justification. This landmark decision established important precedents regarding limits to local taxation powers over private property rights under US constitutional law protecting citizens from unfair or excessive government levies.

In the dissenting opinion for Warner v. New Orleans, it was argued that the city of New Orleans had no right to impose a tax on interstate commerce, which in this case involved a steamship company operating between states. The justice contended that such taxation is an infringement upon federal jurisdiction and violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution. This clause gives Congress exclusive power over interstate commerce and prevents individual states from interfering with or regulating it through taxation or other means. Therefore, according to this view, any state law imposing taxes on activities related to interstate commerce should be deemed unconstitutional as they infringe upon federal powers and disrupt free trade among states.