Hotchkiss v. National Banks is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle of federal preemption in banking. The case involved a dispute between a national bank and a state bank over the right to issue notes. The national bank argued that it had the exclusive right to issue notes under the National Bank Act of 1864, while the state bank argued that it had the right to issue notes under state law. The Supreme Court held that the National Bank Act preempted state law, and that the national bank had the exclusive right to issue notes. The Court reasoned that the National Bank Act was a federal law, and that it was intended to create a uniform system of banking throughout the United States. The Court also held that the National Bank Act was a valid exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. The decision in Hotchkiss v. National Banks established the principle of federal preemption in banking, and it has been cited in numerous subsequent cases.

In Hotchkiss v. National Banks, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a national bank could be held liable for an unpaid debt of its president. The majority opinion found that the bank was not liable because it had no knowledge or involvement in the transaction and thus could not be held responsible for any losses incurred by creditors. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that under existing law a corporation is always responsible for debts contracted by its officers; secondly, he contended that Congress had intended to make national banks accountable for such transactions when they passed legislation allowing them to issue notes as currency. He concluded his dissent by noting that if Congress did not intend to hold national banks accountable then they should have explicitly stated so in their legislation rather than leaving it open to interpretation.