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

Downham et al. v. Alexandria Council was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of taxation. The case involved a dispute between the Alexandria Council and the Downhams, a family of landowners in Alexandria, Virginia. The Alexandria Council had imposed a tax on the Downhams' property, which the Downhams argued was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Downhams, finding that the tax was unconstitutional because it was not based on the value of the property, but rather on the amount of land owned. The Court also found that the tax was not uniform, as it was based on the amount of land owned, rather than the value of the land. This decision established the principle that taxes must be based on the value of the property, rather than the amount of land owned. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then, and is still used today to determine the constitutionality of taxation.
In Downham et al. v. Alexandria Council, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a local ordinance in Alexandria, Virginia that prohibited African Americans from entering and remaining within the city limits after 9 p.m., violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution which guarantees all citizens equal protection under law regardless of race or color. The majority opinion held that this ordinance did not violate any constitutional rights because it applied equally to both white and black persons alike; however, Justice Field dissented on behalf of himself and two other justices arguing that while technically true, this ordinance still had an unequal effect on African American citizens since they were more likely than whites to be out at night for work-related purposes such as providing domestic services or working late hours in factories or warehouses near waterfronts where many blacks lived at the time due to segregation laws preventing them from living elsewhere in town. As such, he argued that this ordinance effectively deprived African Americans of their right to pursue employment opportunities without fear of being arrested simply for being outside after dark - something no white person would have been subjected too - thus violating their right to equal protection under law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment