New Albany v. Burke 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 arose when the state of Indiana attempted to tax the property of a non-resident, John Burke, who owned a lot in the city of New Albany. Burke argued that the state had no authority to tax his property because he was a non-resident. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the state of Indiana had the right to tax the property of a non-resident, as long as the tax was applied uniformly and did not discriminate against non-residents. The Court reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in raising revenue to support its government, and that the tax was applied uniformly and did not discriminate against non-residents. The Court also noted that the tax was not excessive and did not interfere with the rights of the non-resident. As a result, the Court held that the state of Indiana had the right to tax the property of a non-resident.

In the case of New Albany v. Burke, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that allowed for an increase in taxes on certain real estate properties was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was not unconstitutional because it did not violate any provision of the Constitution and thus could be enforced by states without federal interference. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that while there may have been no explicit violation of the Constitution, such laws should still be subject to scrutiny as they can lead to unequal taxation among citizens based on their property holdings. He further argued that allowing states to pass such laws would create an imbalance between those with more wealth and those with less since wealthier individuals would likely own more expensive properties which are taxed at higher rates than lower-priced ones owned by poorer people. Ultimately, he concluded that these types of laws should only be passed if they are necessary for public welfare or safety purposes rather than simply providing additional revenue for governments at large.