In the case of Arnold Tours, Inc., et al. v. Camp et al., 1970, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute involving travel agencies and banking regulations. The plaintiffs were travel agents who challenged a ruling by the Comptroller of Currency that allowed national banks to provide certain travel services as part of their banking operations under federal law. They argued this decision was beyond his authority and detrimental to their businesses due to increased competition from banks offering similar services. The District Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but on appeal, it was reversed by an appellate court which held that such activities fell within permissible bounds for national banks under existing legislation. However, when brought before the Supreme Court, it declined to review these lower court decisions without providing any specific reasons or detailed opinion - effectively upholding the appellate court's decision allowing national banks to engage in providing certain types of travel service functions.

In the dissenting opinion for Arnold Tours, Inc., et al. v. Camp et al., the justice argued that the majority's decision to allow travel agencies to provide banking services was a misinterpretation of federal law and could potentially destabilize traditional banking institutions. The justice believed that Congress had intended to keep these two industries separate when it enacted legislation regulating them, and thus disagreed with the majority's interpretation of this legislation as allowing their overlap. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on competition in both industries if travel agencies were allowed to offer banking services without being subject to all regulations applicable to banks.