In Looney v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the District of Columbia had the authority to impose a tax on the transfer of real estate. The plaintiff, Looney, argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional because it was not a taking of private property for public use. The Court reasoned that the tax was imposed on the transfer of real estate, not on the real estate itself, and that the tax was imposed for the purpose of raising revenue, not for the purpose of taking private property for public use. The Court also noted that the tax was imposed on all transfers of real estate, regardless of the purpose of the transfer, and that the tax was not so high as to be confiscatory. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the tax imposed by the District of Columbia was constitutional and did not violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In Looney v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a statute passed by Congress that allowed for the recovery of damages from the District of Columbia in cases where property had been taken without due process violated Article III and IV of the Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate either article, but Justice Field dissented on behalf of himself and three other justices. He argued that allowing individuals to sue states or their subdivisions would be an unconstitutional infringement upon state sovereignty as guaranteed by Article IV, Section 2; he also noted that such suits were prohibited under common law principles which predated the adoption of our Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that since Congress has no authority over matters concerning state sovereignty except those specifically delegated to them in Article I, they could not pass a law granting citizens this right without violating both Articles III and IV.