Shutte v. Thompson was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could constitutionally require a person to pay a fee in order to exercise their right to vote. The case was brought by a man named Shutte, who had been denied the right to vote in a local election in the state of Ohio because he had not paid a fee. Shutte argued that the fee requirement was unconstitutional, as it violated the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Shutte, finding that the fee requirement was unconstitutional. The Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment prohibited the state from denying the right to vote based on a person's ability to pay a fee. The Court also held that the fee requirement was a form of discrimination, as it had the effect of denying the right to vote to those who could not afford to pay the fee. The Court further held that the fee requirement was not necessary to ensure the integrity of the election, as the state had other means of ensuring the integrity of the election. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the fee requirement was unconstitutional and violated the Fifteenth Amendment. The Court's decision in Shutte v. Thompson established that states cannot deny the right to vote based on a person's ability to pay a fee.

In the case of Shutte v. Thompson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state statute that allowed for an appeal from a judgment in favor of a plaintiff could be applied retroactively. The majority opinion held that it could not, but Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that such statutes should be given full effect even if they are passed after litigation has begun. He reasoned that when Congress passes laws which affect pending cases, those laws must be respected as valid and binding upon all parties involved regardless of when they were enacted or how long ago the lawsuit began. Furthermore, he noted that allowing appeals from judgments in favor of plaintiffs would help ensure fairness by giving defendants more opportunities to challenge decisions made against them and prevent potential injustice due to errors or misunderstandings during trial proceedings.