Wiggins v. People, etc., in Utah was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could impose a tax on a non-resident for the privilege of doing business in the state. The case was brought by a non-resident of Utah, Wiggins, who was doing business in the state and was being taxed for the privilege. Wiggins argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the tax was a form of discrimination against non-residents and that it was not a legitimate exercise of the state's power to tax. The Court also held that the tax was not a legitimate exercise of the state's power to regulate commerce, as it was not related to any legitimate purpose of the state. The Court's decision in Wiggins v. People, etc., in Utah was an important victory for non-residents, as it established that states could not impose taxes on non-residents for the privilege of doing business in the state. The decision also established that the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could be used to protect non-residents from discriminatory taxation.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wiggins v. People, etc., in Utah. He argued that the court should not have reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Utah because it was based on a state statute and did not conflict with any federal law or constitutional provision. He noted that although there may be some disagreement as to whether or not this particular case is within the scope of a state's police power, it is ultimately up to each individual state to decide how best to protect its citizens from harm and preserve public order. Furthermore, he argued that even if this case were found to be outside of a state's police power, Congress has no authority under Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution which requires states respect each other’s laws - so long as they do not violate any federal law or constitutional provision -to interfere with such decisions made by individual states. Ultimately Justice Field concluded that since there was no violation here either way, then reversing the decision would only serve “to weaken confidence in judicial proceedings” and undermine “the stability essential for all government."