The U.S. Supreme Court case Hanover National Bank v. Moyses in 1901 dealt with the issue of bankruptcy and creditors' rights under federal law versus state law. The defendant, Moyses, had filed for bankruptcy in New York after transferring his property to a trustee for the benefit of three preferred creditors who were owed money by him. The plaintiff, Hanover National Bank was one such creditor but did not approve this arrangement and sued on grounds that it violated their rights as per New York State laws which required equal distribution among all creditors during bankruptcy proceedings. However, the court ruled in favor of Moyses stating that since he declared bankruptcy under federal law (Bankruptcy Act), his actions were protected even if they contradicted state laws. This decision upheld the supremacy clause - where federal laws take precedence over conflicting state laws - thereby reaffirming Congress's power to establish uniform rules regarding bankruptcies throughout United States.

In the dissenting opinion for Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of bankruptcy law was too narrow and failed to consider its broader implications. He contended that Congress had intended to create a uniform system of bankruptcy laws across all states, but this ruling would allow individual states to impose their own restrictions on bankruptcies. This could potentially undermine federal authority and disrupt interstate commerce by creating inconsistent rules between different jurisdictions. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that debtors should be allowed to prefer certain creditors over others in their repayments; instead, he believed all creditors should be treated equally under bankruptcy proceedings.