Garrison v. United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a federal tax on distilled spirits was constitutional. The case was brought by a distiller, John Garrison, who argued that the tax was an unconstitutional direct tax on property. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the tax was an indirect tax and therefore constitutional. The Court reasoned that the tax was not a direct tax on property because it was not imposed on the property itself, but rather on the act of distilling spirits. The Court also noted that the tax was imposed on the act of distilling, not on the property itself, and that the tax was not based on the value of the property. The Court concluded that the tax was an indirect tax and therefore constitutional. The Court's decision in Garrison v. United States established the principle that taxes imposed on activities, rather than on property, are indirect taxes and therefore constitutional. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and has been used to uphold the constitutionality of a variety of taxes, including income taxes.

In Garrison v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal law criminalizing libel against the President of the United States violated freedom of speech and press as protected by the First Amendment. The majority opinion held that Congress had authority to pass such a law under its power to punish crimes against the government, but Justice Field dissented on behalf of himself and two other justices. He argued that although Congress may have been able to pass laws punishing certain forms of libel in general, it did not have constitutional authority to single out one person for special protection from criticism or insult through criminal prosecution. Furthermore, he noted that if this type of legislation were allowed then any public official could be shielded from legitimate scrutiny by passing similar laws protecting them from criticism or insult. As such, he concluded that allowing this kind of censorship would undermine democracy itself since citizens would no longer be free to express their opinions about those in power without fear of legal repercussions.