Sturges & Another, Executors v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the federal government could impose a tax on the transfer of property from a decedent to his heirs. The case was brought by the executors of the estate of a deceased man, who argued that the federal government had no authority to impose a tax on the transfer of property from the decedent to his heirs. The Supreme Court held that the federal government did have the authority to impose such a tax, and that the tax was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the tax was a legitimate exercise of the federal government's power to tax, and that it was not an unconstitutional taking of property. The Court also held that the tax was not a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, as the tax was imposed on the transfer of property, not on the property itself. The Court also held that the tax was not a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the tax was imposed on all transfers of property, regardless of the identity of the transferor or transferee.

In Sturges & Another, Executors v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal estate tax imposed on property passing from a decedent to his heirs is unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against taking private property for public use without just compensation. The majority opinion held that such taxes are constitutional and do not constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that the estate tax constituted an illegal seizure of private property by government in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. He argued that since no part of the proceeds derived from such taxation were used directly or indirectly for any purpose beneficial to those taxed, there could be no valid claim made under existing law as to its constitutionality; thus he concluded that it should be declared void as being in conflict with both natural justice and fundamental principles underlying our Constitution.