In Crandall v. State of Nevada, the Supreme Court of the United States considered the constitutionality of a Nevada law that imposed a tax on all persons leaving the state. The plaintiff, Crandall, was a citizen of the United States who had been charged with the tax for leaving the state. He argued that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the law imposed a burden on citizens of the United States who wished to travel from one state to another, and that this burden was not justified by any legitimate state interest. The Court also noted that the law was discriminatory, as it only applied to citizens of the United States and not to citizens of other countries. The Court concluded that the law was unconstitutional and struck it down. This decision established the principle that states cannot impose taxes or other burdens on citizens of the United States that are not justified by a legitimate state interest. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and remains an important part of constitutional law today.

In the case of Crandall v. State of Nevada, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that imposed a tax on all persons leaving the state by stagecoach or other public conveyance violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV in the United States Constitution. The majority opinion held that such a law did not violate this clause because it applied equally to citizens and non-citizens alike, regardless of their place of origin. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that while states have broad power over taxation within their borders they cannot use taxes as an instrument for regulating interstate commerce or discriminating against out-of-state residents who are lawfully present in its territory. He argued further that since no one is required to leave any particular state at any given time, levying such a tax would be tantamount to punishing individuals for exercising their right under federal law to travel freely between different states without interference from local governments.