Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276 (United States Supreme Court 1976).
Clyde Mallory Lines v. Alabama, 296 U.S. 261, 264-265 (United States Supreme Court 1935).
United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U.S. 843, 859-860 (United States Supreme Court 1996).
Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 445 (United States Supreme Court 1827) ("The States are forbidden to lay a duty on exports, and the United States are forbidden to lay a tax or duty on articles exported from any State. There is some diversity in language, but none is perceivable in the act which is prohibited.").
United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U.S. 843 (United States Supreme Court 1996) ("Meaningful textual differences that should not be overlooked exist between the Export Clause and the Import-Export Clause. In finding the assessments in Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U. S. 276, and Department of Revenue of Wash. v. Association of Wash. Stevedoring Cos., 435 U. S. 734, valid, the Court recognized that the Import-Export Clause's absolute ban on 'Imposts or Duties' is not a ban on every tax. Because impost and duty are thus narrower terms than tax, a particular state assessment might be beyond the Import-Export Clause's reach, while an identical federal assessment might be subject to the Export Clause. The word 'Tax' has a common, and usually expansive, meaning that should not be ignored. The Clauses were also intended to serve different goals.").
Low v. Austin, 80 U.S. 29 (United States Supreme Court 1872).
supremecourt.gov
Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, 557 U.S. 1 (United States Supreme Court 2009) ("The Court over the course of many years has consistently interpreted the language of the Clause in light of its purpose, a purpose that mirrors the intent of other constitutional provisions which, like the Tonnage Clause itself, seek to 'restrai[n] the states themselves from the exercise' of the taxing power 'injuriously to the interests of each other.' J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §497, p. 354 (1833) (abridged version). [The Import-Export Clause], for example, forbids States to 'lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports'. It thereby seeks to prevent states with 'convenient ports' from placing other States at an economic disadvantage by laying levies that would 'ta[x] the consumption of their neighbours.' 3 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 542, 519 (M. Farrand rev. 1966) (reprinting James Madison, Preface to Debates in the Convention of 1787 and letter from James Madison to Professor Davis, 1832) ... [This Court] has also understood the [Tonnage Clause] as reflecting an effort to diminish a State's ability to obtain certain geographical vessel-related tax advantages whether the vessel in question transports goods between States and foreign nations or, as here, only between the States.").
Boris I. Bittker; Brannon P. Denning (1998). "The Import-Export Clause"(PDF). Mississippi Law Journal. 68: 521–564. Retrieved 16 April 2016 – via Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship at Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository.
