The City of Washington v. The United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether the City of Washington had the right to tax the federal government. The case arose when the City of Washington attempted to impose a tax on the federal government for the use of its streets and other public works. The United States argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which states that federal law is supreme over state law. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the United States, holding that the City of Washington did not have the right to tax the federal government. The Court reasoned that the federal government was immune from taxation by the states, and that the City of Washington was attempting to impose a tax on the federal government in violation of the Supremacy Clause. The Court also noted that the City of Washington had not provided any evidence that the tax was necessary to support the public works in question. As such, the Court held that the tax was unconstitutional and could not be imposed.

In the case of The City of Washington, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether or not a local law passed by Congress in 1871 that allowed for the taxation of certain real estate within the city limits was constitutional. Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion arguing that Congress had no authority to pass such a law because it violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution which states that only Congress has power over federal property and land within its jurisdiction. He argued further that this tax would be an unconstitutional burden on citizens who owned property in D.C., as they were already paying taxes to both their state government and federal government without any additional benefit from either one. Furthermore, he noted how this type of taxation could lead to other forms of abuse if left unchecked since there is no limit on what kind or amount can be taxed under this particular act. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing such laws would set dangerous precedent and should therefore be struck down as unconstitutional.