REDFIELD v. PARKS was a Supreme Court case from 1925 that dealt with the issue of whether a state could require a non-resident to pay a tax on the income they earned from property located in the state. The case was brought by a resident of New York who owned property in the state of Maine. Maine had passed a law requiring non-residents to pay a tax on the income they earned from property located in the state. The plaintiff argued that this law was unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the law was unconstitutional. The Court held that the law violated the Due Process Clause because it imposed a tax on the income of a non-resident without giving them the opportunity to be heard in court. The Court also held that the law was an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, as it imposed a tax on income earned from property located in another state. The decision in REDFIELD v. PARKS established that states cannot impose taxes on non-residents without giving them the opportunity to be heard in court. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases dealing with the issue of taxation of non-residents.

In the Supreme Court case of Redfield v. Parks, Justice Black delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to properly consider and interpret the relevant statutes at issue. He noted that while it was true that Congress had granted authority to states to regulate certain aspects of interstate commerce, this did not mean they could do so without regard for constitutional limits on their power. In particular, he pointed out that Congress' intent when granting such authority was not necessarily to allow states unfettered discretion over all matters related to interstate commerce; rather, it was intended as a way for them to protect local interests from outside interference or manipulation by other states or entities. Furthermore, Justice Black argued that if Congress wanted state regulation of interstate commerce activities within its borders then it should have explicitly stated so in the legislation itself instead of leaving such decisions up to individual state legislatures who may be more inclined towards protectionism than free trade principles. Ultimately, his dissent concluded with an admonishment against allowing any one branch of government too much control over economic affairs since doing so would lead only further away from democratic ideals and values enshrined in our Constitution