Norton v. Shelby County is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1886. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Norton, and the defendant, Shelby County, over the ownership of a tract of land in Tennessee. Norton claimed that he had purchased the land from the county in 1871, but the county argued that the sale was invalid because it had not been approved by the state legislature. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Norton, holding that the sale was valid and that the county had no right to reclaim the land. The Court reasoned that the county had no authority to sell the land without the approval of the state legislature, and that the sale was valid because it had been made in good faith and for a fair price. The Court also held that the county was not entitled to any compensation for the land, as it had not been legally authorized to sell it in the first place. The decision in Norton v. Shelby County established an important precedent in property law, as it established that a county cannot reclaim land that it has sold without the approval of the state legislature. The case also established that a sale made in good faith and for a fair price is valid, even if it is not authorized by the state legislature.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Norton v. Shelby County, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass legislation concerning taxation of property within a state. He argued that the power to tax was one of the most important powers held by states and could not be taken away from them without their consent. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress were allowed to exercise this power it would lead to an increase in federal control over local matters which should remain under state jurisdiction. Justice Field also noted that while there may have been some instances where Congress had passed laws regarding taxation, these laws did not apply directly or indirectly on any particular state but rather applied generally throughout all states equally. As such, he concluded that this case was different as it sought specifically target a single state for taxation purposes and thus exceeded Congressional authority granted by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution which only gave limited powers related to taxes and duties imposed upon imports or exports between states or with foreign nations.