The City of Norwich v. Norwich & New York Transportation Company is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1886. The case involved a dispute between the City of Norwich and the Norwich & New York Transportation Company over the company's right to operate a ferry service across the Thames River. The City of Norwich argued that the company had no right to operate the ferry service without the city's permission, while the company argued that it had the right to operate the ferry service under the terms of a contract it had with the state of Connecticut. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the City of Norwich, ruling that the company had no right to operate the ferry service without the city's permission. The Court held that the contract between the company and the state of Connecticut did not give the company the right to operate the ferry service without the city's permission, and that the city had the right to regulate the ferry service as it saw fit. The Court also held that the city had the right to impose reasonable regulations on the ferry service, such as requiring the company to pay a fee for the use of the city's docks.

In the case of City of Norwich v. Norwich & New York Transportation Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state statute that allowed municipalities to purchase and operate public transportation systems was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was not, as it violated the Contract Clause of the U.S Constitution which prohibits states from passing laws impairing contracts between private parties without just compensation being provided for any losses incurred by those parties. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Miller argued that while he agreed with much of what had been said in regards to contract law principles and their application in this case, he felt there were other considerations at play here such as local autonomy and self-governance rights granted to cities under state constitutions which should be taken into account when making a decision on this matter. He further argued that if these rights are respected then municipalities should have some degree of freedom when deciding how best to provide services like public transportation within their communities without having them unduly restricted by federal or state governments through legislation or court rulings such as this one.