Loudon v. Taxing District was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a taxing district could levy taxes on a non-resident landowner. The plaintiff, Loudon, owned land in a taxing district in the state of Ohio. The district had levied taxes on Loudon's land, which he argued was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the taxing district had the authority to levy taxes on Loudon's land. The Court reasoned that the taxing district was created by the state legislature and was authorized to levy taxes on all property within its boundaries. The Court further held that the taxing district was not required to provide any services to Loudon in exchange for the taxes, as the district was not obligated to provide services to non-residents. The Court's decision in Loudon v. Taxing District established that taxing districts have the authority to levy taxes on non-resident landowners. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the authority of taxing districts to levy taxes on non-residents.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Loudon v. Taxing District, arguing that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of the law and would lead to a dangerous precedent. He argued that Congress had not intended for states to be able to tax federal property, as this would interfere with its power over such matters. Furthermore, he noted that if state taxation were allowed on federal property it could potentially result in double taxation or unequal treatment of citizens based on their ownership status. Finally, Justice Field stated that allowing state taxes on federal land would create confusion and uncertainty regarding which laws applied where and when they should be paid - something which Congress had never intended nor authorized through any legislation passed by them.