Laughlin v. District of Columbia is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1886. The case involved a dispute between the District of Columbia and a man named John Laughlin. Laughlin had been convicted of a crime in the District of Columbia and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He then filed a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional because the District of Columbia had not provided him with a jury trial. The Supreme Court agreed with Laughlin, ruling that the District of Columbia was required to provide a jury trial for criminal cases. The Court held that the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to a jury trial in criminal cases, applied to the District of Columbia. The Court also held that the District of Columbia was required to provide a jury trial for all criminal cases, regardless of the severity of the crime. This case was significant because it established that the Sixth Amendment applied to the District of Columbia, and that the District was required to provide a jury trial for all criminal cases. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it has been used to establish the right to a jury trial in other jurisdictions.

In Laughlin v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tax imposed by Congress on real estate in the District of Columbia was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was not, as it violated Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants Congress exclusive legislative power over federal territories and property owned by the United States. In his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that since Congress had been granted plenary authority over all matters concerning Washington D.C., they were within their rights to impose such a tax without violating any part of the Constitution. He further argued that since this particular tax did not interfere with or impede upon any other state's laws or regulations, there could be no violation even if it did violate Article I, Section 8 because only those powers specifically delegated to states are protected from interference from other governments under our system of dual sovereignty between them and federal government entities like Congress.