In the case of Anderson v. Yungkau (1946), the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving bankruptcy and debt repayment. The petitioner, Anderson, was a receiver for an insolvent bank that had lent money to Yungkau before it went bankrupt. After the bank's insolvency, Anderson sought to recover these funds from Yungkau's estate as part of his duty to repay creditors of the failed bank. However, Yungkau argued that he should not be required to pay back this loan because it was unsecured and therefore discharged in his own previous bankruptcy proceedings. The Supreme Court sided with Anderson, ruling that even though Yungkau had declared bankruptcy previously and been discharged from most debts under federal law at that time; he still owed money to the now-insolvent bank due its status as a national banking association which is exempted by statute from discharge provisions applicable generally in favor of bankrupts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Anderson v. Yungkau argued that the majority's decision was not consistent with established legal principles and precedent. The dissent believed that the court had overstepped its bounds by intervening in a matter of state law, specifically regarding how to interpret a will and distribute assets from an estate. They contended that these issues should be left to state courts unless there is clear evidence of error or injustice, which they did not believe existed in this case. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain key facts and felt their conclusions were based on speculation rather than solid evidence. Overall, they expressed concern about potential negative implications for federalism and judicial restraint.