The Supervisors v. Durant was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a dispute between the Supervisors of the Town of Newburgh, New York and William Durant, a local businessman. The Supervisors had passed a resolution that prohibited the sale of liquor within the town limits. Durant, who owned a tavern in the town, challenged the resolution, arguing that it violated his right to due process of law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Durant, finding that the resolution was unconstitutional. The Court held that the resolution was an unreasonable exercise of the town's police power and that it deprived Durant of his property without due process of law. The Court also noted that the resolution was not necessary to protect the public health or safety, and that it was an arbitrary and oppressive measure. The decision in The Supervisors v. Durant established the principle that the government cannot deprive individuals of their property without due process of law. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important part of constitutional law today.

In The Supervisors v. Durant, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could tax federal bonds held by its citizens. The majority opinion found that such taxation was unconstitutional and violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that states had an inherent right to tax property within their borders regardless of who owned it or what type of property it was. He further argued that if Congress wanted to protect federal bonds from taxation, they should have done so explicitly in legislation rather than relying on constitutional interpretation alone. Ultimately, Field's dissent did not carry enough weight for him to sway the court's decision; however his argument still stands as a valid point today when considering how far states can go in taxing private property within their jurisdiction