This Supreme Court case involved the Board of Commissioners of Knox County, Ohio and five individuals: William H. Aspinwall, Joseph W. Alsop, Henry Chauncey, Charles Gould and Samuel L. M. Barlow (collectively referred to as “the defendants”). The dispute arose when the county commissioners attempted to levy a tax on certain lands owned by the defendants in order to fund public improvements such as roads and bridges within their district; however, they were unable to do so because these particular lands had been exempted from taxation due to an act passed by Congress in 1820 which granted them immunity from state taxes for twenty years following its passage date. The court ultimately ruled that this congressional act was still valid despite having expired after twenty years since it did not contain any language indicating that it would be automatically repealed upon expiration or otherwise cease being effective at some point thereafter; thus making it clear that the land owners were still exempt from taxation even though two decades had elapsed since its enactment into law.

In this case, the Board of Commissioners of Knox County argued that they had the right to levy a tax on certain lands owned by William H. Aspinwall and his co-defendants. The Supreme Court disagreed with them, ruling in favor of the defendants. They found that under Ohio law, only state legislatures have the power to impose taxes on real estate within their jurisdiction; local governments do not possess such authority. Furthermore, even if Knox County did have such powers granted to it by statute or charter from Ohio's legislature, those laws would be unconstitutional as they violate Article I Section 10 Clause 1 of the United States Constitution which states "No State shall pass any Bill of Attainder". This clause prohibits taxation without representation and is meant to protect citizens from arbitrary taxation imposed upon them without due process or consent from elected representatives who are accountable for their actions. Therefore, since no legislative body has given Knox County permission to tax these lands in question here today - nor could it constitutionally do so - then its attempt at levying a tax was invalidated by this court decision.