Bissell v. Spring Valley Township is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of taxation. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Bissell, and the defendant, Spring Valley Township, over the taxation of Bissell's property. Bissell argued that the taxation of his property was unconstitutional because it was based on an assessment that was higher than the actual value of the property. The Supreme Court held that the taxation of Bissell's property was unconstitutional because it was based on an assessment that was higher than the actual value of the property. The Court reasoned that the taxation of property based on an assessment that was higher than the actual value of the property violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the taxation of property based on an assessment that was higher than the actual value of the property was a taking of property without just compensation, which was prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. The Court concluded that the taxation of Bissell's property was unconstitutional and ordered that the assessment be reduced to the actual value of the property.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in BISSELL v. SPRING VALLEY TOWNSHIP, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound public policy. He argued that while a municipality may have the power to make regulations for its own government, it does not have authority over private property rights unless there is an express grant of such power from a higher legislative body or constitutional provision. In this case, he argued that Spring Valley Township had no such authority since neither Congress nor any state legislature had granted them permission to interfere with Bissell's land rights. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if they did possess such authority, their actions would still be unconstitutional because they were attempting to take away Bissell’s right without due process of law or just compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Therefore, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that he could not agree with the majority’s ruling and believed it should be reversed on appeal so as not to undermine fundamental principles of justice and fairness established in our nation's laws