Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Bank v. Tennessee

• 1881 • 104 U.S. 493 • Waite Court
In Bank v. Tennessee, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could constitutionally tax a national bank. The case arose when the Bank of Tennessee, a national bank, refused to pay a state tax on its capital stock. The Bank argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the state tax was unconstitutional because it interfered with the exclusive power of Congress to...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1881
Docket: 1130
104 U.S. 493
26 L. Ed. 810
1881 U.S. LEXIS 2033

Bank v. Tennessee

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Bank v. Tennessee, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could constitutionally tax a national bank. The case arose when the Bank of Tennessee, a national bank, refused to pay a state tax on its capital stock. The Bank argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the state tax was unconstitutional because it interfered with the exclusive power of Congress to regulate national banks. The Court reasoned that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and that the state tax would interfere with the exclusive power of Congress to regulate national banks. The Court also held that the state tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court reasoned that the state tax would interfere with the Bank's contractual obligations to its shareholders. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state tax was unconstitutional because it interfered with the exclusive power of Congress to regulate national banks and violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court's decision established that states cannot tax national banks without the permission of Congress.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bank v. Tennessee, arguing that the state of Tennessee had not overstepped its authority by enacting a law requiring banks to pay taxes on their capital stock. He argued that states have broad powers when it comes to taxation and can impose taxes on any property within their borders as long as they do so fairly and uniformly. Furthermore, he noted that while Congress has exclusive power over interstate commerce, this does not mean it has exclusive power over all aspects of banking; rather, states are still allowed to regulate certain aspects such as taxation. In conclusion, Justice Field argued that since there was no conflict between federal and state laws in this case, the Court should defer to the decision made by the legislature of Tennessee regarding bank taxation.

Opinion written by Justice SJField
Decided: Jan 09, 1882
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms