In John Briscoe and Others v. The President and Directors of the Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Supreme Court considered whether a state-chartered bank had authority to issue notes that were not backed by gold or silver. The plaintiffs argued that such notes violated their rights under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibited states from issuing bills of credit. However, in its ruling, the court held that while it was true that states could not issue bills of credit as money for circulation among citizens without violating constitutional provisions, they could do so when incorporated into banks with certain restrictions on how those notes were issued and used. Furthermore, it found no evidence to suggest Congress intended to prohibit state-chartered banks from issuing paper currency through their own banking operations; thus upholding the constitutionality of such actions taken by state governments.

In the case of John Briscoe and Others v. The President and Directors of the Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to incorporate a bank or any other private institution. He maintained that such power was reserved for the states alone under Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 (the Contract Clause) of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that even if Congress did have this power it could not be used to create an institution with privileges and immunities beyond those enjoyed by all citizens equally; thus making it unconstitutional as well as illegal. In conclusion, Chief Justice Taney held that while there may be some need for banking institutions in certain cases they should only exist at state level where their creation is within constitutional limits.