Van Brocklin & Another v. State of Tennessee & Others was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could tax the income of a non-resident. The case was brought by two non-residents of Tennessee, Van Brocklin and another, who argued that the state's income tax was unconstitutional as it applied to them. The Supreme Court held that the state could not tax the income of non-residents, as it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the state had no jurisdiction over the non-residents, and thus could not tax them. The Court also held that the state could not tax the income of non-residents on the basis of their having a business relationship with the state, as this would be an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. The Court's decision was a victory for non-residents, as it established that states could not tax the income of non-residents without violating the Constitution.

In Van Brocklin & Another v. State of Tennessee & Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state statute that allowed for the involuntary commitment of individuals with mental illness violated their constitutional rights. The majority opinion held that it did not violate any constitutional rights and upheld the law. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that such laws should only be used as a last resort when all other alternatives have been exhausted. He reasoned that while states had an interest in protecting its citizens from harm caused by those with mental illness, they also had an obligation to protect individual liberty and due process under the Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that these statutes could lead to arbitrary decisions being made about who is committed without proper judicial review or oversight which would be unconstitutional.