In the case of State of Florida v. Anderson, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state could impose a tax on a non-resident for the privilege of doing business in the state. The case involved a dispute between the State of Florida and Anderson, a non-resident of the state. Anderson had been doing business in Florida and had been assessed a tax by the state. Anderson argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause did not prohibit a state from taxing a non-resident for the privilege of doing business in the state. The Court noted that the tax was not discriminatory and that it was imposed on all non-residents who did business in the state. The Court also noted that the tax was not excessive and that it was not an undue burden on interstate commerce. The Court concluded that the tax was constitutional and that the State of Florida had the right to impose it on Anderson. The Court held that the tax was a valid exercise of the state's power to regulate commerce and that it did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the case of State of Florida v. Anderson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could tax certain bonds issued by another state. The majority opinion held that states are not allowed to tax other states' bonds in order to protect their sovereignty and autonomy from one another. However, Justice Field dissented on this issue and argued that it is within a state's right to impose taxes on any property located within its borders regardless of who owns it or where it originated from. He further stated that if such taxation were prohibited then no state would be able to exercise its taxing power over anything owned by citizens outside its jurisdiction which would lead them into an unequal relationship with each other as well as with foreign nations. Therefore, he concluded that while there may be some inconveniences caused by allowing such taxation they should not outweigh the importance of preserving each individual state's ability to properly manage their own affairs without interference from others.