| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Commissioners of the Taxing District of Brownsville v. Loague was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1891. The case involved a dispute between the Taxing District of Brownsville and a local resident, Loague, over the taxation of certain property. The Taxing District had assessed a tax on Loague's property, but Loague argued that the tax was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Loague, ruling that the Taxing District had exceeded its authority in assessing the tax. The Court held that the Taxing District had no authority to tax property outside of its jurisdiction, and that the tax was therefore invalid. The decision was significant in that it established the principle that local governments cannot tax property outside of their jurisdiction.
In the Supreme Court case of Commissioners of the Taxing District of Brownsville v. Loague, Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He believed that it was not within Congress’ power to authorize taxation by local governments without first obtaining consent from state legislatures as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that even if such authority were granted to Congress under this clause, it would still need to be exercised with caution so as not to interfere with any existing laws or regulations set forth by states on matters concerning taxation. Additionally, Justice Harlan asserted that since Texas had already established its own taxing system prior to Congress passing legislation authorizing local taxes in 1876; therefore those taxes could only be imposed upon individuals who consented thereto via their representatives in accordance with Texas law at the time. In conclusion, Justice Harlan maintained his belief that allowing for taxation without representation violated fundamental principles outlined in both federal and state constitutions and thus should have been overturned due to lack of constitutional authority given from either source