In the case of Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee for the Use of Memphis (1895), the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state could tax national bank shares at higher rates than other moneyed capital in hands of individual citizens, or if this violated federal law prohibiting discriminatory taxation on such shares. The court ruled that states cannot impose taxes on national banks at rates exceeding those applied to other financial institutions within their jurisdiction, as it would constitute discrimination and violate federal law. This decision upheld previous rulings which emphasized equal treatment under taxation laws between different types of corporations and businesses operating within a state's borders.

In the dissenting opinion for Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles established by the Court. He contended that a state has no power to tax national banks beyond what is explicitly granted by Congress, and any such taxation must be in accordance with federal law. In this case, he believed Tennessee had exceeded its authority by taxing shares of stock held in a national bank at rates higher than those applied to other moneyed capital within the state. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "moneyed capital," arguing it should include all forms of investment yielding income or profit similar to banking institutions - not just corporations engaged in similar activities as banks. Therefore, according to Justice Harlan’s view, Tennessee violated federal law because it did not provide equal treatment between shares in national banks and other types of moneyed capital.