In the case of First National Bank of Boston, Executor v. Maine (1931), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state could tax an out-of-state bank for managing assets within its jurisdiction. The First National Bank of Boston, acting as executor and trustee to a Massachusetts resident's estate which included property in Maine, argued that it should not be subject to taxation by Maine because it did not have sufficient contacts or activities in the state. However, the court ruled against this argument stating that since the bank was carrying on business within Maine’s borders through its management of local properties and collection of income from them, it had established enough connection with the state to justify taxation under due process clause. This decision affirmed states' rights to tax out-of-state entities conducting business within their boundaries.

The dissenting opinion in the case of First National Bank of Boston v. Maine argued that the majority's decision to allow states to tax federal bank shares was a violation of constitutional principles. The dissenters believed that this ruling undermined the supremacy clause, which establishes federal law as superior to state law, and could potentially lead to conflicts between different levels of government. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on national banks' ability to operate effectively if they were subject to varying taxation policies from state governments. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant precedents and statutes related to banking and taxation laws.