Manning v. French was a Supreme Court case from 1881 that dealt with the issue of whether a state could tax the income of a non-resident. The plaintiff, Manning, was a resident of New York who owned property in the state of Connecticut. He argued that Connecticut had no right to tax his income from the property, as he was a non-resident. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Manning, holding that a state could not tax the income of a non-resident. The Court reasoned that the power to tax was an attribute of sovereignty, and that a state could not exercise its power of taxation beyond its own borders. This decision established the principle that a state cannot tax the income of a non-resident, and it has been cited in numerous subsequent cases.

In the dissenting opinion of Manning v. French, Justice Scalia argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of precedent and an overly broad reading of Title VII. He stated that although it is true that Title VII prohibits discrimination against individuals because they are associated with someone else who has a protected characteristic, this does not mean employers must treat all employees equally regardless of their own characteristics or qualifications. In his view, if an employer chooses to give preferential treatment to one employee over another due to their personal characteristics or qualifications then there is no violation under Title VII as long as those same criteria would be applied in any other situation regardless of whether one party had a protected characteristic while the other did not. Therefore, he concluded that since Ms. Manning's husband was treated differently than her solely because he had certain qualifications which she lacked (not because either were married) there could be no claim for discrimination under Title VII and thus summary judgment should have been granted in favor of Mr. French instead