In the 1934 case of Doty et al. v. Love, Superintendent of Bank, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that allowed banks to reduce their liabilities by deducting debts owed to them from depositors' accounts violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The plaintiffs were depositors in an insolvent bank and argued that this practice unfairly reduced their claims against the bank's assets. However, Mississippi’s banking laws permitted such deductions as part of its insolvency proceedings for banks. The court ruled in favor of Love, upholding Mississippi’s statute allowing insolvent banks to offset depositor claims with outstanding loans made by those same depositors before distributing remaining assets among all creditors equally (pro rata). The court found no violation of constitutional rights under either federal or state law because it did not deprive any person "of life, liberty or property without due process." This decision affirmed states’ power to regulate banking practices within their jurisdictions.

In the dissenting opinion for DOTY et al. v. LOVE, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANK, 1934, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing banks to reduce their liabilities by reducing depositors' claims during insolvency proceedings violated constitutional principles of contract impairment and due process. The dissenting justices contended that this ruling effectively allowed states to alter private contracts retroactively in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibits any state from passing laws impairing contractual obligations. They also asserted that such alterations without providing adequate protection or compensation infringed upon Fifth Amendment rights guaranteeing due process under law. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential negative impacts on public confidence in banking institutions and economic stability as a result of permitting such practices.