Supervisors v. Kennicott was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1881. The case involved a dispute between the supervisors of a county in Illinois and a local newspaper editor, John Kennicott. The supervisors had passed a resolution that required all county newspapers to publish their official notices and advertisements. Kennicott refused to comply with the resolution, arguing that it violated his First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Kennicott, ruling that the resolution was unconstitutional. The Court held that the resolution was an unconstitutional infringement on Kennicott's freedom of the press, as it forced him to publish material that he did not agree with. The Court also held that the resolution was an unconstitutional violation of Kennicott's right to freedom of speech, as it forced him to publish material that he did not want to publish. The Court's decision in Supervisors v. Kennicott established an important precedent in First Amendment jurisprudence. The Court's ruling affirmed the right of individuals to express their opinions without fear of government interference. It also established the principle that the government cannot compel individuals to publish material that they do not agree with. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

In Supervisors v. Kennicott, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tax imposed by Congress on distilled spirits manufactured in the United States was constitutional. The majority of the court held that it was not, as it violated Article I Section 8 of the Constitution which grants Congress power to lay and collect taxes only for public purposes. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that while there may be some doubt as to whether or not such a tax is within Congressional authority under Article I Section 8, he believed that if so then it should be upheld since no other part of the Constitution prohibits its imposition. He further argued that even if one were to assume that such a tax did violate Article I Section 8 then still any doubts about its constitutionality should be resolved in favor of upholding it due to long-standing precedent established by prior cases involving similar taxation schemes.