Sparrow v. Strong was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could impose a tax on a federally chartered corporation. The case was brought by the Bank of the United States, which was a federally chartered corporation, against the state of Pennsylvania. The bank argued that the state's tax on its capital stock was unconstitutional because it violated the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the state's tax was unconstitutional because it interfered with the federal government's exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court reasoned that the tax was an interference with the federal government's exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce, and thus violated the supremacy clause. The Court also held that the tax was an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce, as it imposed a greater burden on the bank than on other corporations. The Court concluded that the tax was unconstitutional and struck it down.

In the case of Sparrow v. Strong, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a treaty between two Native American tribes and the United States government could be enforced in state court. The majority opinion held that it could not, as treaties are federal law and thus must be interpreted by federal courts only. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while treaties are indeed federal laws, they also have an effect on local matters such as land ownership which should be adjudicated in state courts. He argued that allowing states to interpret these agreements would ensure their enforcement more effectively than relying solely on federal jurisdiction over them. Furthermore, he noted that Congress had previously allowed for tribal disputes to be heard in both state and territorial courts without any objection from either party involved or from other members of Congress at the time; thus implying its approval for such proceedings taking place outside of strictly federal jurisdiction.