In Louisiana v. Wood, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state could impose a tax on a non-resident for the privilege of doing business within the state. The case involved a dispute between the state of Louisiana and a non-resident, William Wood, who had been assessed a tax for the privilege of doing business in the state. The Supreme Court held that the state of Louisiana had the power to impose a tax on a non-resident for the privilege of doing business within the state. The Court reasoned that the power to tax was an inherent power of the state, and that the state had the right to impose a tax on a non-resident for the privilege of doing business within the state. The Court further held that the tax was not an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce, as it was a tax on the privilege of doing business within the state, and not on the goods or services being sold. The Court's decision in Louisiana v. Wood established that states have the power to impose taxes on non-residents for the privilege of doing business within the state. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the power of states to impose taxes on non-residents.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Louisiana v. Wood, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound public policy. He argued that a state law should not be held unconstitutional simply because it conflicts with another state's laws or policies; rather, he maintained that such an act must violate some provision of the Constitution before being declared invalid. Furthermore, Justice Field asserted that if states were allowed to pass laws without regard for their potential conflict with other states' statutes, then each would become a "law unto itself," resulting in chaos and confusion among citizens who may find themselves subject to conflicting regulations depending on where they reside. Finally, Justice Field noted his belief that Congress had no authority over this matter since it did not involve interstate commerce or any other federal power enumerated by the Constitution; thus, he concluded by urging caution when declaring state acts unconstitutional as doing so could lead to dangerous consequences for our nation's legal system.