Pendleton County v. Amy was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between Pendleton County, West Virginia and Amy, a resident of the county. Pendleton County had passed a law requiring all residents to pay a tax to support the county's public schools. Amy refused to pay the tax, arguing that it violated her religious beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pendleton County, finding that the tax was a valid exercise of the county's power to tax and that it did not violate Amy's religious beliefs. The Court held that the tax was a legitimate means of providing for the education of the county's children, and that it did not interfere with Amy's right to practice her religion. The Court also noted that the tax was not discriminatory, as it applied equally to all residents of the county. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pendleton County, finding that the tax was a valid exercise of the county's power to tax and that it did not violate Amy's religious beliefs. The Court held that the tax was a legitimate means of providing for the education of the county's children, and that it did not interfere with Amy's right to practice her religion.

In the case of Pendleton County v. Amy, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a county court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a woman who had been accused of selling liquor without a license. The majority opinion held that the county court did have such authority and issued its ruling accordingly. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that while state laws may grant counties certain powers, they cannot exceed those granted by Congress or violate constitutional rights. He further argued that since no federal law existed granting counties this power at the time of this case, it should not be allowed to stand as precedent for future cases involving similar issues. Furthermore, he noted that issuing injunctions against individuals is an extreme measure and should only be used when absolutely necessary; in this instance there was no evidence presented showing any harm done by Amy's alleged actions so she should not be subject to such drastic measures as an injunction being issued against her without due process being followed first.