The U.S. Supreme Court case Arkansas Building and Loan Association v. Madden (1899) revolved around the issue of whether a building and loan association, incorporated under the laws of Kansas but doing business in Arkansas, could be taxed by the latter state on shares owned by its members who were residents of other states. The court ruled that such taxation was unconstitutional as it violated Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 (the Privileges or Immunities Clause) which prohibits any state from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of its own citizens. The decision clarified that corporations are considered "citizens" within their home state for purposes related to this clause, thus ensuring equal protection rights for out-of-state shareholders.

In the dissenting opinion for Arkansas Building and Loan Association v. Madden, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court regarding contracts and their obligations. He contended that a contract should not be invalidated simply because it may seem unfair or unjust in its terms; rather, it is up to each party involved to ensure they are satisfied with an agreement before entering into it. Furthermore, he believed that if a state law interferes with these contractual obligations - as was claimed in this case - then such law would be unconstitutional under Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S Constitution which prohibits states from passing laws impairing obligation of contracts. Thus, according to him, even though usury laws were designed to protect borrowers from excessive interest rates imposed by lenders, they cannot override existing contractual agreements between parties unless those agreements themselves violate some fundamental principle of justice or public policy.