In the case of Wheeler v. Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1890 that a state has the right to tax property within its borders, even if it is owned by non-residents and used for interstate commerce. The court held that such taxation does not interfere with federal control over interstate commerce as long as it doesn't discriminate against out-of-state owners or create undue burdens on them. This decision came about when a Michigan resident sued an Illinois resident who owned land in Michigan but used it for railroad purposes, arguing that this use exempted him from paying taxes on his property under federal law governing interstate commerce. The court disagreed and upheld the state's power to levy taxes.

In the dissenting opinion for Wheeler v. Jackson, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and its equal protection clause. He contended that this case did not involve any discrimination against interstate commerce or violation of anyone’s constitutional rights but rather it concerned a state law about taxation which should be left to states' discretion. The justice believed that if every tax law could potentially violate the Constitution, then all state powers would essentially be transferred to federal control - an outcome he deemed undesirable and contrary to principles of federalism. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on what constituted 'property,' arguing instead for a broader interpretation inclusive of intangible assets such as corporate franchises.