Livingston County, Missouri v. First National Bank of Portsmouth, New Hampshire was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1876. The case involved a dispute between the county and the bank over the collection of taxes. The county had issued bonds to the bank in order to finance a railroad project, and the bank had agreed to pay the taxes on the bonds. However, when the taxes came due, the bank refused to pay them, claiming that the bonds were exempt from taxation. The county argued that the bonds were not exempt, and that the bank was obligated to pay the taxes. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the county, ruling that the bonds were not exempt from taxation. The Court held that the bank was obligated to pay the taxes, and that the county had the right to collect them. The decision established the principle that the government has the right to collect taxes on all forms of property, regardless of whether or not they are exempt from taxation. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and is still an important precedent in tax law today.

In the dissenting opinion of Livingston County, Missouri v. First National Bank of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority had “overlooked” a key point in their decision: that Congress did not intend to give states authority over national banks when it passed the National Banking Act. He noted that while state laws may be applied to national banks if they do not conflict with federal law or regulations issued by the Comptroller of Currency (COC), this case was different because there were no conflicting COC regulations at issue and thus no need for judicial interpretation. Furthermore, he argued that even if such an interpretation were necessary, it should have been left up to Congress rather than being decided by courts. In conclusion, Justice McReynolds believed that since Congress had already determined how much power states would have over national banks through its legislation and regulation-making powers under Article I of the Constitution—and since those powers did not include taxation—the Court should defer to Congressional intent instead of creating new interpretations on its own accord.