The U.S. Supreme Court case Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tully et al., 1983, dealt with the issue of whether a New York tax scheme that provided benefits to companies doing business in the state but not to those conducting similar activities outside its borders was constitutional or not. The court ruled against Westinghouse Electric Corporation, upholding New York's right to offer such incentives as part of their taxation policy without violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which prohibits states from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. Westinghouse had argued that this tax incentive program unfairly discriminated against them because they conducted significant operations overseas and thus could not avail themselves of these benefits while competitors who operated primarily within New York could do so freely. However, Justice Thurgood Marshall writing for majority held that there was no discrimination since all corporations subject to franchise taxes in NY were eligible for same credits regardless if they engaged in domestic or foreign commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tully et al., Justice Stevens argued that New York's tax credit scheme did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, contrary to what was held by majority decision. He contended that this case should have been viewed as a matter of state taxation rather than interstate commerce regulation, and thus it fell within states' rights to design their own tax systems in ways they deemed fit for their economic conditions and policy objectives. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were no discriminatory effects on out-of-state businesses since all corporations operating in New York could avail themselves of these credits if they chose to export from New York ports; hence there was no burden placed on interstate commerce per se.