Meader et al. v. Norton was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could tax the property of a non-resident. The case was brought by the Meader family, who were non-residents of the state of Vermont. The Meaders owned a large tract of land in Vermont, and the state had imposed a tax on the property. The Meaders argued that the tax was unconstitutional, as it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with the Meaders, ruling that the tax was unconstitutional. The Court held that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited a state from taxing the property of a non-resident. The Court reasoned that the Clause was intended to protect the rights of citizens of other states, and that the tax imposed by Vermont was an unconstitutional burden on the Meaders. The Court also held that the tax was not a valid exercise of the state's police power, as it was not necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. The Court's decision in Meader et al. v. Norton established an important precedent in the area of state taxation of non-residents.

In the case of Meader et al. v. Norton, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to pass legislation granting lands to individuals for educational purposes. He stated that such grants were not within the scope of power granted by the Constitution and thus violated its provisions. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress was allowed to make such grants then it would be able to grant land for any purpose whatsoever without regard for constitutional limits on its powers or restrictions imposed by state laws. Finally, Field contended that allowing this type of congressional action would lead to an unconstitutional expansion of federal power at the expense of states' rights and individual liberty.