In the case of Free v. Bland, a Texas couple purchased U.S. savings bonds under both their names with the right of survivorship, as permitted by federal regulations. When Mr. Free died, his wife became sole owner of these bonds according to federal law; however, this conflicted with Texas state law which did not recognize joint tenancy and required half of the community property (including the bonds) to pass to Mr. Free's children from a previous marriage upon his death. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs. Bland on grounds that when state and federal laws conflict over matters related to federally-issued instruments like savings bonds, federal law takes precedence due to its supremacy clause in Article VI Clause 2 of US Constitution . The court held that it was necessary for uniform national policy governing these securities' transferability and ownership rights after death - an area where states have traditionally been allowed considerable leeway - be determined by Federal rather than State courts or legislatures.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Free v. Bland argued that Texas law should govern the disposition of United States savings bonds, rather than federal regulations. The dissenters believed that this was a matter of property rights and inheritance laws, which traditionally fall under state jurisdiction. They contended that allowing federal law to supersede state law in such matters could lead to inconsistencies and confusion across different states' legal systems. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential infringement on states' rights by the federal government if it were allowed to dictate how these bonds are handled after an owner's death.