Supervisors v. Rogers was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of taxation. The case involved a dispute between the supervisors of a county in Virginia and a man named Rogers. The supervisors had imposed a tax on Rogers, which he refused to pay. Rogers argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it was not authorized by the state legislature. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rogers, finding that the tax was unconstitutional. The Court held that the supervisors had exceeded their authority in imposing the tax, as the state legislature had not authorized it. The Court also held that the supervisors had violated the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing the tax without due process of law. The decision in Supervisors v. Rogers established the principle that taxes must be authorized by the state legislature in order to be valid. It also established the principle that taxes must be imposed in accordance with due process of law. This case is still cited today in discussions of taxation and due process.

In Supervisors v. Rogers, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tax imposed by Congress on certain kinds of property in the District of Columbia was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was not, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that Congress had broad authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to impose taxes and other regulations within its jurisdiction over federal territories like D.C., including taxation for revenue purposes as well as regulation for public health or safety reasons. Furthermore, he noted that such power did not depend upon any state's consent or approval; rather it could be exercised directly by Congress itself without interference from local authorities or courts unless specifically prohibited by an act of Congress itself. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since no such prohibition existed here and since there were legitimate public policy reasons behind imposing this particular tax (namely raising funds for improvements in D.C.), then it should be upheld as constitutional despite objections raised against it by local supervisors who sought to challenge its validity in court