In the case of First National Bank of Hartford, Wisconsin v. City of Hartford et al., 1926, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a city ordinance that required banks to pay for paving in front of their buildings violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The bank argued that it did not receive any special benefit from the pavement and thus should not be forced to bear its cost. However, the court ruled against them stating that such assessments are typically considered valid if they do not exceed the benefits received by property owners as a result of improvements made by municipalities. In this particular instance, it was determined that having paved streets could potentially increase business traffic and therefore provide an indirect benefit to banks located on those streets.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of First National Bank of Hartford, Wisconsin v. City of Hartford et al., Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that a city ordinance requiring banks to pay an annual license fee was unconstitutional. He argued that such a tax did not interfere with federal control over national banks and therefore should be allowed under state law. Furthermore, he contended that it was within the rights of states to impose taxes on businesses operating within their borders as long as they do not discriminate against federally chartered institutions or impede their operations in any way. The justice also pointed out inconsistencies in previous rulings by the court regarding similar matters and suggested revisiting these decisions for clarity and fairness sake.