Block v. Commissioners is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1878. The case involved a dispute between the Commissioners of the City of St. Louis and the heirs of a deceased man, John Block. The Commissioners had taken possession of a piece of property owned by Block, claiming that it was necessary for the construction of a public street. The heirs of Block argued that the Commissioners had taken the property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the Commissioners had taken the property without just compensation, and that the heirs of Block were entitled to compensation for the taking. The Court reasoned that the taking of the property was for a public purpose, and that the public had a right to use the property for that purpose. However, the Court also held that the taking of the property was subject to the Fifth Amendment, and that the heirs of Block were entitled to just compensation for the taking. The Court ordered the Commissioners to pay the heirs of Block the fair market value of the property.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Block v. Commissioners, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a tax imposed on property owners for improvements made by others is unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution which states "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." The tax at issue here was not imposed as part of any general assessment or taxation scheme, but rather solely to pay for improvements made by another party. Justice Field further argued that even if this type of taxation were permissible under certain circumstances, this case did not meet those criteria since there had been no showing that either party benefited from these particular improvements or received any special advantage from them. Finally, he noted that while such taxes may be necessary in some cases where benefits are conferred upon individuals who do not pay their fair share towards public works projects, they should only be used when absolutely necessary and with great caution so as to avoid infringing upon individual rights protected by the Constitution.