Parish et al. v. United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether the United States had the right to tax the income of a citizen of a foreign country. The case was brought by a group of citizens of the United Kingdom who had been taxed by the United States on their income from investments in the United States. The plaintiffs argued that the United States had no right to tax them as they were not citizens of the United States. The Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to tax the income of foreign citizens who had investments in the United States. The Court reasoned that the United States had the right to tax the income of foreign citizens in order to protect its own citizens from unfair competition. The Court also held that the United States had the right to tax the income of foreign citizens in order to raise revenue for the government. The Court concluded that the United States had the right to tax the income of foreign citizens who had investments in the United States.

In the case of Parish et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that allowed for the seizure and sale of property belonging to Confederate sympathizers during the Civil War was constitutional. The majority opinion held that Congress had acted within its authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution in passing this law; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress did not have any power over private property rights outside of those expressly enumerated in Article I; secondly, he contended that even if such powers were granted by implication or necessity they should be exercised with caution and only when absolutely necessary. In his view, seizing and selling private property without due process violated fundamental principles of justice enshrined in both state constitutions as well as natural law itself. He concluded by stating that while it may be true “that war is sometimes an occasion for great public exigencies” which require extraordinary measures to meet them – these must still remain consistent with basic notions of fairness and justice otherwise there would be no limit on government power whatsoever.