In the case of Abilene National Bank v. Dolley, the Supreme Court dealt with a conflict between state and federal banking laws. The bank was chartered under national law but operated in Kansas, where state law required banks to maintain a certain level of reserves. When the bank failed to meet this requirement, Dolley, as Bank Commissioner for Kansas, ordered it closed. The bank argued that as a nationally-chartered institution it was only subject to federal regulations and not those imposed by states. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dolley stating that while national banks were primarily governed by federal law; they were also subject to some degree of state regulation when operating within their borders. This decision upheld the principle of dual sovereignty - recognizing both federal and state authority over different aspects of banking operations.

In the dissenting opinion for Abilene National Bank v. Dolley, it was argued that the Kansas Blue Sky Law violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The justice contended that this law unfairly targeted out-of-state corporations by requiring them to provide detailed financial information before they could sell securities in Kansas, while exempting domestic companies from these requirements. Furthermore, he believed that such a requirement constituted an undue burden on interstate commerce as it effectively barred many legitimate businesses from operating within state borders unless they complied with overly burdensome regulations. He also questioned whether states had any constitutional authority to regulate securities transactions at all since these were essentially private contracts between willing parties which should not be subject to government interference.