Ottawa v. Carey was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could tax the property of a Native American tribe located within its borders. The case arose when the Ottawa Tribe of Indians, located in Michigan, sued the state of Michigan for attempting to tax the tribe's property. The tribe argued that the state had no authority to tax the property because it was held in trust by the federal government. The Supreme Court held that the state of Michigan did not have the authority to tax the property of the Ottawa Tribe. The Court reasoned that the tribe's property was held in trust by the federal government, and that the state had no authority to interfere with the trust relationship. The Court further held that the state's attempt to tax the property was a violation of the tribe's sovereignty and was therefore unconstitutional. The Court's decision in Ottawa v. Carey established that states do not have the authority to tax the property of Native American tribes located within their borders. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving Native American tribes and their rights to self-governance.

In Ottawa v. Carey, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in which the cause of action arose from within the state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and reversed the judgment of the lower court. Justice Field dissented, arguing that states should be allowed to exercise their power over persons who are present within its borders or whose activities affect those living there regardless of residency status. He argued that this would help ensure fairness for all parties involved and protect citizens from being taken advantage of by out-of-state actors with whom they may have disputes or grievances. Furthermore, he noted that allowing states to exercise their authority in these cases is consistent with other areas where courts have found similar jurisdictional powers exist even when one party is not domiciled in said state.