John P. Van Ness and William Jones brought a case against the Bank of the United States to the Supreme Court in 1839. The plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully charged interest on their loan from the bank, which was not allowed by law at that time. The defendant countered with an argument based on contract law, claiming that since it was agreed upon between both parties when signing the loan agreement, then it should be enforced as such. Ultimately, after much deliberation and consideration of precedent cases regarding contracts and banking laws, Chief Justice Taney ruled in favor of the Bank of the United States due to its contractual obligation with Van Ness and Jones being valid under state law at that time. This ruling set a legal precedent for future cases involving similar issues concerning banks' rights to charge interest rates according to their own discretion within certain parameters established by state or federal legislation.

In the case of John P. Van Ness and William Jones vs. The Bank of the United States, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that although Congress had the power to create a bank, it did not have authority to grant such an institution exclusive privileges or immunities from state taxation. He further contended that if Congress could do so, then it would be able to interfere with states’ rights and powers over their own internal affairs without constitutional warrant. Additionally, he noted that while some may argue for implied powers within Article I Section 8 of the Constitution as justification for creating a national bank with exclusive privileges and immunities from state taxation, this was not supported by precedent or history; thus any attempt by Congress to do so should be considered unconstitutional.