In Turner v. Maryland, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state could impose a tax on the sale of goods imported from another state. The petitioner, Turner, was a resident of Maryland who had purchased goods from a store in Pennsylvania. The state of Maryland had imposed a tax on the sale of goods imported from other states, and Turner argued that this tax was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court reasoned that the tax was a burden on interstate commerce and was therefore prohibited by the Commerce Clause. The Court also noted that the tax was discriminatory in nature, as it only applied to goods imported from other states and not to goods produced within the state. The Court concluded that the tax was unconstitutional and that Turner was not required to pay it. This decision established the principle that states cannot impose taxes on goods imported from other states, as such taxes are a burden on interstate commerce and are therefore prohibited by the Commerce Clause.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Turner v. Maryland, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and violated established precedent. He argued that a state cannot impose taxes on income from federal bonds because it would be an unconstitutional interference with Congress' power to borrow money on behalf of the United States. Justice Field noted that this case had been previously addressed by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), which held that states could not tax instruments of national debt as such taxation would interfere with Congress’ ability to borrow money for public purposes under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that if states were allowed to tax these instruments then they could effectively nullify congressional acts by taxing them out of existence or make them so expensive as to render them useless for their intended purpose—which is prohibited under existing law and Supreme Court precedent set forth in McCulloch v Maryland and other cases since then. Therefore, he concluded his dissent by stating emphatically: “The judgment should be reversed."