In the case of First National Bank of Logan v. Walker Bank & Trust Co., 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a national bank could establish and operate a branch in Utah without state approval, despite state law requiring such approval for all banks operating within its borders. The court ruled that under federal banking laws, national banks were not required to obtain permission from states before establishing branches within their jurisdictions. This decision affirmed the supremacy of federal law over conflicting state regulations in matters related to interstate commerce and banking operations.

In the dissenting opinion for First National Bank of Logan v. Walker Bank & Trust Co., Justice Black disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal banking law, arguing that it was not intended to allow national banks to establish branches anywhere within their home state without regard to local or state laws. He believed that this broad interpretation could potentially undermine states' rights and disrupt local economies by allowing large national banks to dominate smaller community-based institutions. Furthermore, he argued that such a reading of the law would contradict its original purpose: promoting a system where both national and state-chartered banks coexist harmonically rather than one overpowering another. Therefore, he dissented from the majority’s decision which allowed First National Bank of Logan to open a branch in Salt Lake City despite Utah's restrictions on intrastate branching.