Robertson v. Carson was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could require a non-resident to pay a tax on the sale of real estate located within the state. The case was brought by Robertson, a non-resident of the state of California, who had sold real estate located in the state. The state of California had imposed a tax on the sale of the real estate, and Robertson argued that the tax was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional, and that the state of California had the right to impose a tax on the sale of real estate located within its borders. The Court reasoned that the tax was a legitimate exercise of the state's power to regulate commerce within its borders, and that it did not violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court also noted that the tax was not discriminatory, as it applied equally to all non-residents who sold real estate located within the state. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of California had the right to impose a tax on the sale of real estate located within its borders, and that the tax did not violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Robertson v. Carson, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted and misapplied a prior case, United States v. Gratiot. He argued that while it was true that Congress could not delegate its legislative power to an executive branch agency such as the Secretary of War, they were still able to grant them authority over certain matters within their jurisdiction so long as those matters did not require legislation or involve any policy-making decisions on behalf of Congress itself. In this particular case, Justice Field believed that the Secretary of War's decision to reject Robertson's claim for compensation was well within his authority since he had been given discretion by Congress in deciding whether or not claims should be paid out from public funds; thus no violation of Congressional powers had occurred and therefore there was no need for judicial intervention into what should have remained an administrative matter between two branches of government.