The Battle v. The United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether the United States had the right to tax a state-chartered bank. The case arose when the United States attempted to impose a tax on the Battle Bank of Tennessee, a state-chartered bank. The bank argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the United States, holding that the federal government had the right to tax the bank. The Court reasoned that the power to tax was an implied power of the federal government, and that the Tenth Amendment did not prohibit the federal government from exercising this power. The Court also held that the tax was not a violation of the state's sovereignty because it was imposed on the bank, not the state itself. The ruling in The Battle v. The United States established the principle that the federal government has the power to tax state-chartered banks.

In The Battle, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged violation of federal law. In this particular case, the defendant had been convicted in a state court for selling liquor without paying taxes as required by federal law. Justice Field wrote the dissenting opinion and argued that states should not be allowed to exercise jurisdiction over cases involving violations of federal laws because it would lead to confusion and inconsistency in how such laws were enforced across different jurisdictions. He further argued that Congress has exclusive authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce among states and with foreign nations; thus, any attempt by states to enforce their own regulations on matters related thereto is unconstitutional. Finally, he noted that if Congress wanted state courts to have concurrent jurisdiction over these types of cases then they could pass legislation granting them such power but until then only federal courts should have authority in these matters.