The U.S. Supreme Court case Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. Dimension Financial Corp., et al., 1985, revolved around the definition of a "bank" under the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA). The Federal Reserve Board had argued that Dimension Financial Corporation was operating as a bank and thus fell under its regulatory purview due to offering checking accounts and commercial loans, two activities traditionally associated with banking. However, Dimension contended it wasn't a bank because it didn't offer demand deposits which could be withdrawn by check for payment to third parties - an activity included in BHCA's definition of banking at that time. The court ruled in favor of the Federal Reserve Board stating that Congress intended for all institutions functioning like banks to be regulated as such regardless if they met every criterion outlined in BHCA's definition or not.

In the dissenting opinion for the case Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. Dimension Financial Corp., Justice White disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes a "bank" under federal law. He argued that Congress intended to regulate any institution that accepted deposits and made commercial loans, regardless if they were demand deposits or not. The majority's narrow definition would exclude many institutions from regulation, which he believed was contrary to Congressional intent. Furthermore, he criticized their reliance on legislative history as it ignored other relevant evidence suggesting a broader definition was intended by lawmakers. Therefore, in his view, Dimension Financial Corporation should have been considered a bank subject to federal regulations.