In the case of Lankford and Others, Composing The State Banking Board of The State of Oklahoma v. Platte Iron Works Company (1914), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Platte Iron Works Company. This dispute arose when the state banking board attempted to enforce a law that required all banks within Oklahoma to have their safes made by companies located within the state. Platte Iron Works, an out-of-state company, sued on grounds that this law violated both interstate commerce laws and equal protection rights under Fourteenth Amendment. The court agreed with these arguments stating that such legislation was discriminatory against non-local businesses and interfered with interstate trade; thus it was unconstitutional.

In the dissenting opinion for Lankford v. Platte Iron Works Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to rule in favor of Platte Iron Works Company was incorrect because it violated states' rights. The dissenting justices believed that Oklahoma had a right to regulate its own banking industry without federal interference. They contended that the state law requiring banks to use only approved safe companies did not violate any constitutional provisions or unfairly discriminate against out-of-state businesses as claimed by Platte Iron Works Company. Instead, they viewed this requirement as a legitimate exercise of state power aimed at protecting local financial institutions and their customers from potential risks associated with unregulated safes and vaults. Therefore, according to them, the Supreme Court should have upheld Oklahoma's law rather than striking it down on Commerce Clause grounds.