In the case of Swift Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States government had the right to tax the profits of a company that was incorporated in one state but did business in another. The company, Swift, argued that the government did not have the right to tax its profits because it was not doing business in the state where it was incorporated. The government argued that it had the right to tax the profits of any company that was doing business in the United States, regardless of where it was incorporated. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the government, ruling that the government had the right to tax the profits of any company that was doing business in the United States, regardless of where it was incorporated. The Court reasoned that the government had the right to tax the profits of any company that was doing business in the United States, as it was necessary to fund the government and its operations. The Court also noted that the government had the right to tax the profits of any company that was doing business in the United States, regardless of where it was incorporated, as it was necessary to ensure that all companies were paying their fair share of taxes.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Swift Company v. United States, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law requiring companies to pay taxes on their income from bonds issued by state governments. He argued that such taxation was unconstitutional because it violated the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, which reserves all powers not delegated to Congress for the states or people. Furthermore, he argued that this type of taxation would be an undue burden on corporations and could lead to double taxation if both federal and state governments were allowed to tax corporate income from these types of investments. Finally, Justice Field noted that there was no precedent for allowing such a broad power over commerce as proposed by Congress in this case and thus concluded his dissent with strong words against its constitutionality.