In Brown & Another v. Houston, Collector, & Another, the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a tax imposed by the state of Tennessee on the sale of certain goods. The plaintiffs argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the tax was constitutional, finding that the state had a legitimate interest in raising revenue and that the tax was not so oppressive as to be unconstitutional. The Court also held that the tax did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it was applied equally to all persons in the state. The Court concluded that the tax was a valid exercise of the state's power to tax and did not violate the Constitution.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Brown & Another v. Houston, Collector, & Another. He argued that the tax imposed on cotton futures was unconstitutional because it violated Article I of the Constitution which states that Congress has no power to impose taxes except for those necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers. Furthermore, he argued that this particular tax did not fall within any of these enumerated powers as it was a direct tax on property rather than an indirect one such as excise or duty taxes which are authorized by Congress under certain circumstances. Additionally, Justice Field contended that even if this were considered an excise or duty tax then it would still be unconstitutional due to its discriminatory nature since only some types of commodities were taxed while others were exempt from taxation altogether. Finally, he concluded his dissent by stating that although there may have been good intentions behind imposing this type of taxation upon cotton futures contracts they should not override constitutional principles and thus render them invalid in court proceedings.