In the 1920 case of American Bank & Trust Company et al. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Georgia, et al., the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over whether or not certain checks were subject to collection fees under Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act. The plaintiff banks argued that they should be reimbursed for these charges by the defendant, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta because according to them, these checks did not fall within the purview of "checks and drafts upon any member bank" as stated in Section 16 which could be charged for collection costs. However, after examining both sides' arguments and reviewing relevant legislation including amendments made to it since its enactment in 1913; Justice McReynolds delivered an opinion on behalf of unanimous court rejecting plaintiffs’ claims stating that such interpretation was inconsistent with intent behind this law i.e., facilitating check collections at par without imposing undue burden on any particular institution(s). Therefore ruling favored defendants holding that those disputed items indeed constituted 'checks' within meaning given by said act hence liable for respective charges.

The dissenting opinion in the case of American Bank & Trust Company et al. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Georgia, et al., argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the National Banking Act and its amendments. The dissenters believed that these laws were intended to provide national banks with protection against competition from state-chartered institutions by allowing them to branch out into areas where they had previously been unable to operate due to restrictive state laws. They contended that this interpretation was supported by both legislative history and precedent set by previous court decisions interpreting similar statutes. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that Congress did not intend for national banks' branching rights under federal law to supersede those granted or restricted under state law, arguing instead that such an interpretation would undermine the purpose and effectiveness of federal banking legislation.