Frits v. Palmer is a Supreme Court case from 1877 that dealt with the issue of whether a state could tax the income of a non-resident. The plaintiff, Frits, was a resident of New York who owned property in Michigan. Michigan had passed a law that imposed a tax on the income of non-residents, and Frits argued that this was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Frits, holding that the Michigan law was unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the law was an unreasonable burden on non-residents, and that it was not necessary for the state to impose such a tax in order to raise revenue. This decision established the principle that states cannot impose taxes on non-residents without a compelling reason.

In the Supreme Court case of Frits v. Palmer, Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in which she argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be overturned. She argued that under existing precedent, an individual who is injured by another person's negligence can recover damages for their injuries even if they are not directly involved in the negligent act itself. In this particular case, Fritts had been injured when his car collided with a truck owned by Palmer; however, he was not driving at the time of the accident and therefore did not have any direct involvement in it. According to Justice Sotomayor's dissent, this fact should still allow him to recover damages from Palmer since he suffered harm as a result of her negligence regardless of whether or not he was actively participating in it at the time. Ultimately, Justice Sotomayor concluded that because there were no compelling reasons why Fritts should be denied compensation for his injury due to lack of direct involvement on his part during its occurrence – especially given existing legal precedents – then her colleagues' ruling against him must be reversed and remanded back to lower courts for further consideration