▁( 1 8 2 4 ), ▁which ▁determined ▁that ▁it ▁does ▁not ▁end ▁at ▁a ▁state ' s ▁border ▁but ▁extends ▁to ▁commerce ▁within ▁a ▁state ▁" must ▁be ▁capable ▁of ▁author izing ▁the ▁sale ▁of ▁those ▁articles ▁which ▁it ▁introdu ces ." ▁" S ale ▁is ▁the ▁object ▁of ▁import ation ", ▁therefore , ▁" C ong ress ▁has ▁a ▁right ▁not ▁only ▁to ▁author ize ▁import ation , ▁but ▁to ▁author ize ▁the ▁im porter ▁to ▁sell ." ▁Although ▁Maryland ' s ▁tax ▁was ▁on ▁the ▁im porter ▁rather ▁than ▁the ▁imports , ▁it ▁was ▁" to o ▁obvious ▁for ▁controvers y " ▁that ▁such ▁a ▁tax ▁inter fer es ▁with ▁Congress ' ▁ability ▁to ▁reg ulate ▁commerce . ▁ ▁The ▁opinion ▁concluded ▁by ▁not ing : ▁" It ▁may ▁be ▁proper ▁to ▁add ▁that ▁we ▁suppose ▁the ▁principles ▁laid ▁down ▁in ▁this ▁case ▁to ▁apply ▁equally ▁to ▁import ations ▁from ▁a ▁sister ▁state . ▁We ▁do ▁not ▁mean ▁to ▁give ▁any ▁opinion ▁on ▁a ▁tax ▁disc rimin ating ▁between ▁foreign ▁and ▁domestic ▁articles ." ▁ ▁Leg acy ▁Tw enty ▁years ▁after ▁the ▁Brown ▁decision , ▁Roger ▁Tan ey , ▁who ▁had ▁succeeded ▁Marshall ▁as ▁Chief ▁Justice ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁in ▁ 1 8 3 6 , ▁remarked ▁on ▁the ▁case ▁and ▁the ▁wisdom ▁of ▁Marshall ' s ▁decision : ▁ ▁In ▁Brown ▁v . ▁Maryland , ▁Chief ▁Justice ▁Marshall ▁remarked ▁on ▁the ▁applic ability ▁of ▁the ▁Import - Export ▁Cla use ▁to ▁inter state ▁commerce , ▁remark ing ▁that