The Bank of the United States, Appellants v. John T. Ritchie, Jun., and Others, Appellees was a case heard by the Supreme Court in 1834 concerning whether or not The Bank of the United States had legal authority to sue for debt collection in Maryland state courts. The bank argued that it had been granted such power through its charter from Congress while appellees maintained that only states could grant such powers and since no state law allowed it then they were unable to do so. After much deliberation on both sides' arguments, the court ultimately ruled against The Bank of the United States stating that although Congress may have given them certain privileges under their charter those did not extend beyond federal jurisdiction into individual states where different laws applied regarding corporate entities like banks. This decision set an important precedent for future cases involving similar issues as well as established limits on what powers corporations can exercise within each state's borders without explicit permission from local legislatures first.

In the case of The Bank of the United States v. John T. Ritchie, Jr., and Others, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to incorporate a bank with exclusive privileges under the Constitution. He believed that such an act was beyond their power as it would be creating something not authorized by any clause or amendment in the document itself. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress could create such institutions then they should also have been able to grant them exclusive rights over other state-chartered banks; however this was not done so it is clear that there are limits on what powers can be granted by Congress when it comes to banking matters. Finally, Justice McLean concluded his dissent by stating that while he did not believe this particular case warranted judicial review due to its complexity and lack of precedent for similar cases at hand, future cases involving questions about congressional power should be subject to judicial scrutiny since these issues were important enough for public consideration and debate among citizens who may disagree with one another on how best to interpret constitutional provisions related thereto.