Pott v. Arthur was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could require a person to pay a fee in order to obtain a license to practice a profession. The case was brought by a physician, Dr. Pott, who had been denied a license to practice medicine in the state of Arkansas because he had refused to pay the required fee. The Supreme Court held that the state of Arkansas had violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by requiring a fee for a license to practice a profession. The Court reasoned that the fee was a form of taxation, and that the state had not provided any evidence that the fee was necessary to protect the public health or safety. The Court also noted that the fee was not related to the cost of administering the licensing process, and that it was not a reasonable regulation of the profession. The Court concluded that the fee was an unconstitutional burden on the right to pursue a profession, and that the state of Arkansas had violated the Fourteenth Amendment by requiring the fee. The Court held that the fee was an unconstitutional burden on the right to pursue a profession, and that the state of Arkansas had violated the Fourteenth Amendment by requiring the fee.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Pott v. Arthur, arguing that the court should not have granted a writ of error to review the decision of an inferior court when it was based on facts and circumstances which were not presented or argued before them. He noted that this case involved a contract dispute between two parties, and while there may be some questions as to whether one party had breached their agreement, those issues could only be determined by examining evidence from both sides. As such, he felt that it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to make any determination without hearing all relevant testimony first. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if there was an issue with how lower courts handled certain aspects of this case - such as failing to consider certain legal arguments - these matters should still remain within their jurisdiction rather than being reviewed by higher courts since they are more familiar with local laws and customs. Ultimately, he concluded his dissent by stating that granting a writ of error in this instance would set a dangerous precedent whereby any dissatisfied litigant can appeal directly to higher courts instead of having their cases heard at lower levels first.