In the case of City Bank of Fort Worth v. Hunter (1893), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a national bank could be sued in a state court for an act committed outside its home state. The dispute arose when Texas residents, Mr. and Mrs. Hunter, filed suit against City Bank of Fort Worth, alleging that it had wrongfully converted their property located in Kansas into cash to pay off a debt they owed to the bank without giving them proper notice or opportunity to redeem it themselves. The lower courts ruled in favor of the Hunters but on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that under federal law governing national banks at that time (National Banking Act), such institutions were only subject to lawsuits within their home states unless they consented otherwise or if there was another specific statutory provision allowing out-of-state suits. Therefore, since City Bank did not consent and no other statute applied here permitting out-of-state suits against national banks like itself; it couldn't be sued by Texans over actions taken place outside Texas even though those actions may have affected Texan citizens adversely.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of City Bank of Fort Worth v. Hunter, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law imposing a tax on national banks violated principles of federalism and threatened national banking institutions' ability to operate effectively. The dissent contended that such taxes were not only discriminatory but also infringed upon Congress's exclusive power over currency regulation, as established by the Constitution. Furthermore, they believed this ruling could potentially lead states to impose burdensome taxation policies on these federally chartered entities in an attempt to favor local banks or raise revenue. They maintained that while states have broad taxing powers under their police powers, those should not be used in ways that interfere with federal operations or policy objectives set forth by Congress.