In the case of The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. The Town of New-Haven, and William Wheeler, it was determined that a Connecticut statute which allowed towns to tax churches and their ministers violated both state and federal law. This ruling set an important precedent by establishing that religious organizations are exempt from taxation under both state constitutions as well as the United States Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. In this case, it was argued that since churches were not engaged in any commercial activity or trade they should be exempt from taxation just like other non-profit institutions such as schools or hospitals. Furthermore, taxing churches would violate citizens’ right to freely practice their religion without interference from government entities. Ultimately, this decision established a legal principle which has been upheld throughout American history: religious organizations cannot be taxed by states unless there is clear evidence showing how those taxes will benefit society at large rather than simply being used to fund general government operations.

In the dissenting opinion of The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. The Town of New-Haven, and William Wheeler, Chief Justice Marshall argued that a Connecticut statute which required non-residents to post bond before bringing suit was unconstitutional. He reasoned that this law violated Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution, also known as “The Privileges and Immunities Clause” which states that citizens from one state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens in other states. This clause is meant to protect individuals from discrimination based on their residency status when they travel between different states. By requiring non-residents to post bond prior to filing suit while not imposing such a requirement on residents, Connecticut had effectively discriminated against out-of-state plaintiffs who wished to bring legal action within its borders. As such, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that this law was an unconstitutional violation of interstate rights under Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 and should therefore be struck down accordingly.