In the 1934 case Gordon, Secretary of Banking et al., the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute involving banking regulations in Pennsylvania. The state had passed legislation that allowed for an assessment on shares of national banks operating within its borders to cover costs associated with supervision and regulation by state authorities. A group of shareholders from such banks challenged this law, arguing it was unconstitutional as it interfered with federal authority over national banking operations. The Supreme Court disagreed, upholding the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's law. It held that while states cannot directly tax or regulate national banks due to federal preemption, they can impose indirect burdens like assessments on bank shareholders under their general taxing powers so long as these do not interfere substantially with the functioning of such institutions or discriminate against them. This decision affirmed states' rights to levy taxes indirectly related to federally chartered entities operating within their jurisdiction without infringing upon federal supremacy.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Gordon, Secretary of Banking et al., 1934 argued that the majority's decision was an overreach and a violation of states' rights. The justices who dissented believed that the federal government should not have jurisdiction over state banking regulations, as this power is reserved for individual states under the Tenth Amendment. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on local economies and small businesses due to increased federal regulation. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of interstate commerce laws, arguing that these laws do not apply to intrastate banking activities. Overall, their dissent emphasized a belief in limited federal power and strong states' rights.