Snyder v. Marks, Collector was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a federal tax on distilled spirits was constitutional. The case was brought by a distiller, Snyder, who argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against taking private property for public use without just compensation. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional, finding that the tax was not a taking of private property, but rather a legitimate exercise of the government's power to tax. The Court further held that the tax was not a taking of private property because it did not interfere with Snyder's right to use or dispose of his property. The Court also noted that the tax was not excessive and did not amount to a taking of private property. The Court concluded that the tax was a valid exercise of the government's power to tax and did not violate the Fifth Amendment.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Snyder v. Marks, Collector. He argued that the tax imposed by Congress on distilled spirits was unconstitutional because it violated Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which states that all taxes must be uniform throughout the United States. The tax at issue was not uniform as it varied from state to state depending on whether or not a particular state had adopted certain regulations regarding distillation and taxation of distilled spirits within its borders. Justice Field argued that this type of discrimination between states is prohibited under Article I, Section 8 and therefore should have been struck down by the majority opinion as unconstitutional. Furthermore, he noted that even if such a law were constitutional it would still be unjustified since there was no evidence presented to show how different rates for different states could possibly benefit either revenue collection or public policy objectives related to alcohol consumption and regulation.