In Gilman v. The City of Sheboygan, the Supreme Court considered a case involving an ordinance passed by the city that required all non-residents to pay a fee in order to engage in business within its limits. The plaintiff argued that this ordinance was unconstitutional because it violated his right as a citizen of Wisconsin and the United States to pursue any lawful trade or occupation without discrimination based on residency status. In ruling for the plaintiff, Chief Justice Taney held that such ordinances were invalid under both state and federal law since they interfered with citizens’ rights to travel freely between states and their ability to earn money through legitimate means regardless of where they lived. This decision established important precedent regarding interstate commerce laws which remain relevant today.

In Gilman v. The City of Sheboygan, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Wisconsin statute that allowed cities and towns to issue bonds for internal improvements violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. In an opinion delivered by Justice Field, a majority of justices held that it did not violate this clause because it only applied prospectively and thus did not impair existing contracts. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Swayne argued that while prospective legislation is generally permissible under the Contract Clause, this particular law was unconstitutional because its effect on existing contracts could be seen as substantial impairment. He further noted that if such laws were allowed to stand then states would have too much power over private property rights which are protected by both state constitutions and federal statutes like the Contract Clause.