In the 1890 case of Evans v. State Bank, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving bonds issued by the state of Alabama. The plaintiff, Evans, was an English citizen who purchased these bonds in London and later sued to recover their value after they were defaulted upon. The defendant bank argued that it should not be held liable because it had acted as an agent for Alabama when selling the bonds and therefore enjoyed sovereign immunity from suit under US law. The court disagreed with this argument and found in favor of Evans. It held that while states generally enjoy sovereign immunity from lawsuits, this principle does not extend to agents acting on behalf of a state if those actions are commercial rather than governmental in nature. In other words, when a state or its agents engage in business transactions like issuing bonds for sale on international markets, they can be sued just like any private entity. This decision is significant because it clarified how far-reaching sovereign immunity protections are under American law - specifically ruling out their application to commercial activities undertaken by states or their representatives.

In the dissenting opinion for Evans v. State Ban, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from doing banking business without first establishing a physical presence in the state was inconsistent with principles of interstate commerce. The dissent contended that such laws unfairly discriminated against out-of-state banks and hindered free trade among states. They believed this ruling could set a dangerous precedent by allowing states to enact protectionist measures under the guise of regulating local affairs, thus undermining national economic unity. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 'commerce' as excluding banking transactions and asserted that these activities should be considered part of interstate commerce due to their significant impact on trade between states.