Hazlett v. United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether the federal government had the right to tax the income of a state-chartered bank. The case was brought by the United States against the Hazlett Bank, a state-chartered bank in Pennsylvania. The bank had refused to pay taxes on its income, arguing that the federal government did not have the authority to tax the income of a state-chartered bank. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States, holding that the federal government did have the authority to tax the income of a state-chartered bank. The Court reasoned that the power to tax was an inherent power of the federal government, and that the federal government had the right to tax the income of a state-chartered bank in order to raise revenue for the general welfare of the nation. The Court also noted that the power to tax was necessary to ensure that the federal government could fulfill its obligations to the nation. The decision in Hazlett v. United States established the principle that the federal government has the authority to tax the income of a state-chartered bank. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal taxation.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hazlett v. United States, arguing that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Constitution by passing a law which allowed for forfeiture of property used to commit certain offenses against federal revenue laws. He argued that while Congress has broad powers over taxation and commerce, it does not have the power to pass laws which allow for punishment without trial or conviction. Justice Field further contended that such a law was an unconstitutional deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. He concluded his dissent with a warning about allowing government too much power: "The tendency is always strong to extend governmental powers beyond their legitimate limits; but this should be resisted."