| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Kenosha v. Campbell was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could tax the property of a non-resident. The case was brought by the city of Kenosha, Wisconsin, which had imposed a tax on the property of a non-resident, William Campbell. Campbell argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional, ruling that the privileges and immunities clause did not apply to non-residents. The Court reasoned that the clause was intended to protect the rights of citizens of one state when they travel to another state, and that it did not apply to non-residents. The Court also held that the tax was not a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it was a reasonable exercise of the state's power to tax. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the tax imposed by the city of Kenosha on the property of a non-resident was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to non-residents, and that the tax was a reasonable exercise of the state's power to tax.
In the case of Kenosha v. Campbell, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misconstrued the language of an act passed by Congress to incorporate the city of Kenosha. The act provided for certain taxes and assessments on property within its limits, but did not provide any authority for levying such taxes or assessments upon lands lying outside its boundaries. Justice Field maintained that this was intentional; Congress intended only to grant power over those areas actually included within the corporate limits as defined in their charter. He further argued that if it were otherwise, then cities would be granted unlimited powers over all adjacent territories without consent from either state legislatures or local governments - a result clearly contrary to both constitutional law and public policy.