In the 1914 case of Farish v. State Banking Board of the State of Oklahoma, plaintiff J.J. Farish challenged a state law that required all banks to join a depositors' guarantee fund or face closure. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, upholding the constitutionality of this law and affirming its purpose to protect bank customers from losses due to bank failures. The court found no violation against any constitutional rights as claimed by Farish who was then president and stockholder in two banks refusing to comply with said legislation. This decision reinforced states' power over banking regulations within their jurisdiction while also emphasizing customer protection as an essential aspect thereof.

In the dissenting opinion for Farish v. State Banking Board of Oklahoma, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting banks from operating branches violated constitutional principles of economic liberty and equal protection under the law. The dissenting justices contended that this prohibition unfairly discriminated against larger banking institutions in favor of smaller ones, without any rational basis or compelling state interest justifying such discrimination. They also maintained that by restricting banks' ability to expand their operations and serve more customers, the law infringed upon their freedom to engage in trade and commerce as they saw fit. Therefore, according to these justices, this restriction should have been struck down as unconstitutional.