In County Commissioners of the County of Cherokee v. Wilson, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county in the Cherokee Nation had the authority to levy taxes on non-Indians living within its boundaries. The Court held that the county did not have the authority to do so. The case arose when the County of Cherokee, located in the Cherokee Nation, attempted to levy taxes on non-Indians living within its boundaries. The non-Indians argued that the county did not have the authority to do so, as the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign nation and the county was not authorized to levy taxes on non-Indians. The county argued that it had the authority to levy taxes on non-Indians, as it was a part of the Cherokee Nation and the Cherokee Nation had the authority to levy taxes on non-Indians. The Supreme Court held that the county did not have the authority to levy taxes on non-Indians. The Court reasoned that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign nation and the county was not authorized to levy taxes on non-Indians. The Court further reasoned that the Cherokee Nation had the authority to levy taxes on non-Indians, but the county did not have the authority to do so. The Court concluded that the county did not have the authority to levy taxes on non-Indians.

In County Commissioners of the County of Cherokee v. Wilson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a county had authority to issue bonds for railroad construction. The majority opinion held that it did not have such power and that any attempt by the county to do so would be void. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while states may not grant corporate powers without express legislative authorization, counties are different in nature and should be allowed more leeway when it comes to exercising their own local powers. He argued that since there is no constitutional prohibition against counties issuing bonds for railroad construction, they should be free to do so if authorized by state law or through an act of its legislature. Furthermore, he noted that allowing counties greater autonomy over these matters would benefit both citizens and businesses within those jurisdictions as well as promote economic development in rural areas where railroads could provide much needed transportation services.