Henderson's Distilled Spirits was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between the United States government and Henderson's Distilled Spirits, a distillery in Kentucky. The government had imposed a tax on distilled spirits, and Henderson's Distilled Spirits had refused to pay the tax. The government then seized the distillery and its assets. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, finding that the tax was constitutional and that the government had the right to seize the distillery and its assets. The Court held that the tax was a valid exercise of the government's power to tax and regulate commerce, and that the government had the right to seize the distillery and its assets in order to enforce the tax. The decision in Henderson's Distilled Spirits established the principle that the government has the power to tax and regulate commerce, and that it has the right to seize property in order to enforce its laws. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important precedent in the area of taxation and regulation.

In Henderson's Distilled Spirits, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a tax imposed on distilled spirits by Congress was constitutional. The majority of justices held that it was, finding that the power to levy taxes is an inherent part of Congress' authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion and argued that such taxation violated both due process and equal protection clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment. He reasoned that since distilled spirits were already taxed at state level before federal legislation came into effect, any additional taxation would be double-taxation which he believed should not be allowed as it would constitute an unconstitutional taking without just compensation for those affected by it. Furthermore, he argued that such unequal treatment between states with different levels of existing taxation constituted a violation of equal protection rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as being contrary to principles established in earlier cases like Collector v Day (1871).