In the 1894 case of Wright v. Yuengling, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a Pennsylvania state law that required all beer sold within its borders to be taxed, regardless of where it was brewed, violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The plaintiff in this case was D.G. Yuengling & Son Inc., a brewery based in Pottsville, Pennsylvania which had been selling beer both within and outside of Pennsylvania without paying any tax on out-of-state sales as per federal law at that time. The defendant argued that since some portion of their product ended up being consumed within Pennsylvania even though it wasn't initially intended for sale there, they should not have to pay taxes on those sales under state law because doing so would interfere with interstate commerce. However, after considering arguments from both sides and reviewing relevant legal precedents including previous rulings by lower courts in similar cases involving other states' taxation laws related to alcohol products (such as whisky), the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Yuengling Brewery stating that such taxation did not violate Commerce Clause protections because it applied equally to all beers sold within PA irrespective if they were produced locally or imported from another state.

In the dissenting opinion for Wright v. Yuengling, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on beer manufactured in Pennsylvania but sold in another state was unconstitutional. He contended that this violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress exclusive power over interstate commerce. According to him, once goods have been prepared for shipment and started their journey to another state, they are part of interstate commerce and cannot be taxed by individual states. By allowing Pennsylvania to impose such a tax, he believed it would open up possibilities for other states to do so as well; creating an unfair burden on businesses engaged in interstate trade and potentially leading towards protectionism among states - something he felt was against the spirit of unity embodied within federal law governing trade between states.