The Bank of the United States v. Halstead was a Supreme Court case in which the court determined that a state could not interfere with contracts made between citizens and corporations created by Congress, such as banks. The dispute arose when Ohio passed legislation allowing debtors to pay their debts at face value instead of par value, meaning they would only have to pay back what they originally borrowed rather than any interest accrued on it. This law directly affected the Bank of the United States because many debtors had taken out loans from them and were now able to avoid paying back more than what they initially borrowed due to this new law. The bank sued Halstead for failing to repay his loan according to its terms but lost in lower courts before appealing all the way up through appeals until it reached the Supreme Court where Chief Justice John Marshall ruled against Ohio's interference with federal contracts stating that "the power given [to Congress] is exclusive." Ultimately, this ruling established an important precedent regarding states' rights versus those granted by Congress under Article I Section 8 Clause 18 (Necessary & Proper Clause) of Constitution which allows for congressional authority over interstate commerce and contract disputes involving citizens or corporations created by congress like banks.

In The Bank of the United States v. Halstead, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed the case on technical grounds. He believed that it was important to consider whether or not Congress had authority to incorporate a bank and thus grant it certain privileges such as issuing notes for circulation as currency. Marshall argued that if Congress did indeed possess this power, then any state laws attempting to interfere with its exercise would be unconstitutional and void. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some doubts about congressional authority over banks, they could still exist under implied powers granted by Article I of the Constitution since banking is necessary for carrying out other enumerated powers given to Congress by the document. In conclusion, Marshall believed that dismissing this case without considering these issues was an abdication of judicial responsibility and urged his colleagues to reconsider their decision so these matters could be properly addressed in court proceedings.