Young v. Martin was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could constitutionally require a person to pay a fee in order to practice law. The case was brought by a man named William Young, who had been denied admission to the bar of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia because he had not paid the required fee. Young argued that the fee requirement violated his constitutional right to practice law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Young, holding that the fee requirement was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the fee requirement was a form of taxation, and that the Constitution did not allow the government to tax a person's right to practice law. The Court also noted that the fee requirement was a form of discrimination, as it prevented those who could not afford to pay the fee from practicing law. The decision in Young v. Martin was an important victory for civil rights, as it established that the government could not impose a fee on a person's right to practice law. The decision also established that the government could not discriminate against those who could not afford to pay the fee. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and has been used to protect the rights of individuals to practice law without having to pay a fee.

In Young v. Martin, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction and could proceed with hearing the case. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts were given exclusive authority over cases where parties are from different states; thus he believed it was unconstitutional for a state court to exercise such power in this instance. Additionally, Field noted that Congress had not passed any legislation granting concurrent powers to both federal and state courts in these types of cases; therefore he concluded that only federal courts should be able to hear them as per constitutional mandate. Finally, Field asserted that allowing multiple jurisdictions would lead to confusion and uncertainty regarding which laws applied in each situation since they may vary by location or even within one particular area depending on who is adjudicating it at any given time - something he felt would ultimately undermine justice itself if allowed unchecked