Sturges v. The Collector was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1870. The case involved a dispute between the Collector of Internal Revenue and the plaintiff, William Sturges, over the payment of taxes. The Collector had assessed a tax on Sturges' income from a business he owned, and Sturges refused to pay the tax, arguing that it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Collector, finding that the tax was constitutional and that Sturges was required to pay it. The Court's decision was based on the fact that the tax was imposed by Congress in accordance with its constitutional authority to levy taxes. The Court also noted that the tax was not a direct tax, which would have been unconstitutional, but rather an indirect tax, which was permissible under the Constitution. The Court further held that the tax was not a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, as Sturges had argued. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that the tax was constitutional and that Sturges was required to pay it. The decision established the principle that Congress has the power to levy taxes in accordance with its constitutional authority, and that such taxes are not a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In Sturges v. The Collector, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal tax on distilled spirits violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy. Chief Justice Chase wrote for the majority that it did not violate this provision because Congress had authority to impose taxes and could do so without violating any constitutional rights of citizens. However, in his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that such a tax constituted double jeopardy since it imposed an additional penalty upon those who were already subject to state taxation on their property or business activities related to distilling alcohol. He further argued that if Congress wanted to levy such a tax they should have done so by passing legislation rather than relying on executive power alone as they had done in this case. Furthermore, he asserted that allowing Congress unlimited taxing powers would lead them down a dangerous path of disregarding individual liberties and rights protected under the Constitution.