In the case of Laurens Federal Savings & Loan Association v. South Carolina Tax Commission et al., 1960, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Laurens Federal Savings and Loan Association. The issue at hand was whether a state could tax federal savings and loan associations at rates higher than those applied to local financial institutions without violating federal law. The court held that such differential taxation constituted discrimination against federally chartered institutions, which is prohibited under Section 5(h) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA). This decision affirmed that states must treat federal savings and loan associations no less favorably than their own non-federal counterparts for tax purposes.

The dissenting opinion in the Laurens Federal Savings & Loan Association v. South Carolina Tax Commission case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated principles of federalism. The dissenters believed that states should have the power to tax federally chartered savings and loan associations, as long as they did not discriminate against them or treat them less favorably than similar state-chartered institutions. They contended that this taxation would not interfere with any federal functions or policies, but rather would ensure a level playing field between different types of financial institutions within each state. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and earlier decisions which had upheld similar taxes on national banks. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of both constitutional law and statutory provisions related to these issues.