Halliburton, Marshal v. United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether the United States government had the right to tax the income of a foreign corporation. The case was brought by Halliburton, Marshal, a British corporation, which argued that the United States government did not have the authority to tax its income. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the United States, holding that the government had the right to tax the income of foreign corporations. The Court reasoned that the power to tax was an inherent power of the government, and that the government had the right to tax the income of foreign corporations in order to raise revenue for the public good. The Court also noted that the power to tax was necessary to ensure that foreign corporations paid their fair share of taxes, and that the government had the right to impose taxes on foreign corporations in order to protect the interests of the United States. Ultimately, the Court held that the United States government had the right to tax the income of foreign corporations, and that the government had the right to impose taxes on foreign corporations in order to protect the interests of the United States. This decision established a precedent that has been followed by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases.

In Halliburton, Marshal v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another state in which he did not reside. The majority opinion held that such suits were prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment and could only be heard in state courts. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, that Congress had authority under Article III of the Constitution to allow citizens to bring suit against states; and secondly, that even if Congress lacked such power it should still be allowed because it would provide greater protection for individuals' rights than leaving them at the mercy of their own states' laws. He argued further that allowing these types of actions would help ensure uniformity among different states’ laws and prevent discrimination based on residency status or other factors. Ultimately his dissent was unsuccessful as the majority opinion prevailed but his arguments remain relevant today when considering questions about federalism and individual rights versus those of sovereign governments