In Bank of Redemption v. Boston, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could tax a national bank located within its borders. The Bank of Redemption was a national bank located in Boston, Massachusetts. The state of Massachusetts had imposed a tax on the bank's capital stock, which the bank argued was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state of Massachusetts did not have the authority to tax the Bank of Redemption's capital stock. The Court reasoned that the power to tax the capital stock of a national bank was reserved to the federal government, and that the state of Massachusetts had no authority to impose such a tax. The Court further held that the tax was unconstitutional because it interfered with the federal government's exclusive power to regulate national banks. The Court's decision in Bank of Redemption v. Boston established that states cannot tax the capital stock of national banks. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the taxation of national banks.

In Bank of Redemption v. Boston, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state statute that allowed for the taxation of national banks violated federal law. The majority opinion held that it did not violate federal law and thus upheld the state statute in question. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that Congress had exclusive authority over national banks and their operations; second, he argued that allowing states to tax these institutions would be an unconstitutional infringement upon congressional power as outlined by Article I Section 8 Clause 4 of the U.S Constitution which grants Congress exclusive authority over all matters related to banking and currency regulation. Thus, Justice Field concluded his dissent by arguing against upholding the state statute in question because it infringed upon Congressional powers granted under Article I Section 8 Clause 4 of the U.S Constitution