Barnes v. District of Columbia was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the District of Columbia had the authority to impose a tax on the sale of goods. The case was brought by a merchant, William Barnes, who had been assessed a tax on the sale of goods in the District of Columbia. Barnes argued that the District of Columbia did not have the authority to impose such a tax, as it was not a state and was not authorized to do so by Congress. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Barnes, holding that the District of Columbia did not have the authority to impose a tax on the sale of goods. The Court reasoned that the District of Columbia was not a state and was not authorized to impose taxes by Congress. The Court further held that the District of Columbia was not a sovereign entity and thus did not have the authority to impose taxes. The decision in Barnes v. District of Columbia was significant in that it established that the District of Columbia did not have the authority to impose taxes on the sale of goods. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases dealing with the issue of taxation in the District of Columbia.

In Barnes v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a statute that allowed for the arrest and imprisonment of individuals who failed to pay fines imposed by criminal courts violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The majority opinion held that such statutes were constitutional as long as they provided an opportunity for those arrested to be heard in court before being imprisoned. Justice Field dissented, arguing that imprisoning someone without first providing them with a hearing violated their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. He argued further that it was not enough for states simply provide an opportunity for hearings after arrests had been made; rather, he believed people should have access to hearings prior to any deprivation of liberty or property taking place.