In the case of Bank of Oxford et al. v. Love et al., Bank Examiners of the State of Mississippi, 1919, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that allowed bank examiners to close banks they deemed insolvent without providing notice or an opportunity for hearing violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were shareholders in two banks closed by Mississippi's bank examiners and argued that their property had been taken without due process because they weren't given any chance to contest the closures before they happened. However, after considering both sides' arguments, Justice Mahlon Pitney delivered a unanimous decision upholding Mississippi's banking laws as constitutional on behalf of all nine justices present at trial. The court reasoned that since banking is a business affected with public interest and subject to regulation for protection against financial panics and other dangers threatening general welfare, it was within states' police powers to enact such measures even if these might infrally upon individual rights.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Bank of Oxford et al. v. Love et al., it was argued that state bank examiners did not have a right to inspect and examine private banks without their consent or a warrant, as this violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissenters believed that such actions were unconstitutional unless there was probable cause to believe that the bank had committed some form of wrongdoing, which would then justify an inspection under search warrant procedures established by law. They contended that allowing such inspections without any checks could lead to abuse of power by government officials and infringe upon individual liberties protected by the Constitution.