In the case of State of Florida v. Anderson et al., the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state could tax bonds issued by another state. The defendants argued that such taxation violated Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution which prohibits states from taxing other states' securities without their consent. The court held that while it is true that one state cannot impose taxes on another's securities without its permission, this does not mean that all forms of taxation are prohibited; rather, only those taxes which interfere with or impair the obligations and rights created by a contract between two sovereigns are forbidden. Thus, in this case, since Florida had not interfered with or impaired any contractual obligation between itself and Georgia (the issuer of the bonds), it was allowed to levy its own taxes on them as long as they did not conflict with federal law.

In the case of State of Florida v. Anderson et al., the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state could tax non-residents on income earned from property located within its borders. The majority opinion held that states had no authority to impose such taxes, but Justice Field dissented, arguing that states should have this power in order to protect their citizens and promote economic growth. He argued that it is reasonable for a state government to require those who benefit from its resources and services—such as roads or police protection—to contribute financially through taxation. Furthermore, he noted that allowing states to tax non-residents would encourage them to invest in local businesses and industries which would ultimately create jobs and stimulate economic development throughout the region. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that denying states the ability to collect taxes on out-of-state incomes would be detrimental both economically and socially for all involved parties.