In Mitchell v. Board of Commissioners of Leavenworth County, Kansas, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county board of commissioners had the authority to levy a tax on a railroad company for the purpose of constructing a bridge. The railroad company argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it was not authorized by the state legislature. The Court held that the county board of commissioners did not have the authority to levy the tax. The Court reasoned that the power to tax was a power of the state, and that the state legislature had not authorized the county board of commissioners to levy the tax. The Court also noted that the tax was not necessary for the public good, and that the county board of commissioners had not provided any evidence that the tax was necessary for the public good. The Court concluded that the tax was unconstitutional and that the county board of commissioners did not have the authority to levy the tax. The Court held that the tax was invalid and that the railroad company was not liable for the tax.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Mitchell v. Board of Commissioners of Leavenworth County, Kansas. He argued that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and reason. The plaintiff had been convicted for violating a state statute which prohibited certain acts on Sunday, such as selling liquor or engaging in any kind of labor or business transaction. Justice Field believed that this law violated the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion because it prevented individuals from observing their religious beliefs on Sundays by prohibiting them from engaging in activities they would otherwise be allowed to do during other days of the week. Furthermore, he argued that since there were no exceptions made for those who wished to observe their religious beliefs on Sundays, it constituted an unconstitutional infringement upon freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded that while states have a legitimate interest in protecting public order and morality through legislation like this one at issue here, they must also respect individual rights protected under federal law when doing so; thus making this particular statute invalid under constitutional standards set forth by previous Supreme Court decisions