In the case of Finley v. The President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of the United States (1826), appellant James Finley sued respondents for a debt he claimed was owed to him by them. He argued that his debt had been secured by a bond given to him in 1811 which stated that if he paid off certain debts due from him at specified times then they would pay off his remaining balance with interest. However, when it came time for payment, respondents refused and instead used an act passed in 1816 as justification for their refusal. This act provided that any bonds issued prior to its passage were no longer valid unless specifically re-enacted or renewed under its terms; however this particular bond was not so re-enacted or renewed. The Supreme Court ultimately found in favor of respondents on grounds that since the bond was not re-enacted or renewed according to law it could not be enforced against them despite having been originally issued before said law's enactment date.

In the case of Finley v. The President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to incorporate a bank under its implied powers. He noted that while Congress has certain enumerated powers granted by the Constitution such as taxation and regulation of commerce with foreign nations and among states, it does not have any power to create corporations or grant them special privileges. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress were allowed to use its implied powers for this purpose then there would be no limit on what it could do since all other legislative acts are based on some constitutional provision or implication. Therefore, Marshall concluded that incorporating a bank was beyond Congressional authority and should not be permitted.