In Germania Insurance Company v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the state of Wisconsin had the authority to require foreign insurance companies to pay a tax on premiums collected from Wisconsin residents. The Court held that the state did have the authority to impose such a tax. The case arose when the state of Wisconsin passed a law requiring foreign insurance companies to pay a tax on premiums collected from Wisconsin residents. Germania Insurance Company, a foreign insurance company, challenged the law, arguing that it was unconstitutional. The company argued that the law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from passing laws that are arbitrary or oppressive. The Supreme Court disagreed with Germania Insurance Company and held that the law was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the law was a valid exercise of the state's power to tax and regulate foreign insurance companies. The Court also noted that the law was not arbitrary or oppressive, as it applied equally to all foreign insurance companies doing business in the state. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of Wisconsin had the authority to require foreign insurance companies to pay a tax on premiums collected from Wisconsin residents. The Court found that the law was a valid exercise of the state's power to tax and regulate foreign insurance companies and was not arbitrary or oppressive.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Germania Insurance Company v. Wisconsin, arguing that the Court should not have granted a writ of error to review the decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. He argued that there was no federal question involved and therefore it did not fall within this court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been a federal question present, it would still be inappropriate for this court to grant certiorari because state courts are competent to decide such questions as long as they do so consistently with established principles of law and justice. Justice Field concluded by noting that while he disagreed with some aspects of the decision made by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in this case, he believed their judgment should stand since it was based on sound legal reasoning and precedent set forth by prior decisions from other states' supreme courts.