In the case of W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state's right to tax railroad property owned by non-residents at a higher rate than that applied to residents' property taxes within its jurisdiction. The plaintiff, W.W Cargill Company, was an out-of-state corporation owning and operating grain elevators along various railroads in Minnesota and argued that this taxation policy violated their rights under both the Equal Protection Clause and Commerce Clause of the Constitution as it discriminated against interstate commerce entities like themselves based on domicile or residence status alone without any other reasonable basis for differentiation. However, Justice Peckham delivered a unanimous opinion upholding such differential treatment as constitutional since states have broad discretion over their own internal affairs including taxation policies unless they directly conflict with federal law or constitutionally protected individual rights which wasn't found here; further noting that mere economic disadvantage doesn't necessarily equate to unconstitutional discrimination if there are legitimate public interests served by these measures such as ensuring fair contribution towards local public expenses from all benefiting businesses regardless of where they're headquartered.

The dissenting opinion in the case of W. W. Cargill Co. v Minnesota argued that the state law, which prohibited corporations from owning farmland unless it was necessary for their direct operations, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as claimed by Cargill Inc., a large agribusiness corporation. The dissenters believed that states have a legitimate interest in preserving and promoting family farming and preventing corporate monopolies on agricultural land ownership to protect rural society's social structure and values. They contended that this policy does not discriminate against interstate commerce or out-of-state entities but applies equally to all corporations regardless of origin or business type - hence no violation of equal protection rights occurs under this law.