In Little Rock v. National Bank, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state could tax a national bank. The case arose when the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, attempted to impose a tax on the National Bank of Little Rock. The bank argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the supremacy clause. The Court reasoned that the supremacy clause of the Constitution gave the federal government exclusive authority to regulate national banks. The Court further held that the state tax was an attempt to regulate the national bank, and thus was unconstitutional. The Court also held that the state tax was an unconstitutional burden on the national bank's operations. The Court reasoned that the tax would interfere with the bank's ability to conduct its business, and thus was an unconstitutional burden on the bank's operations. The Court's decision in Little Rock v. National Bank established that states cannot impose taxes on national banks. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to protect the rights of national banks from state taxation.

In Little Rock v. National Bank, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an out-of-state bank in a case involving collection of debts and foreclosure on mortgages. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked personal service or consent from the defendant bank, which was located outside of Arkansas. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that due process should be applied differently when dealing with corporations than with individuals since they are artificial entities created by law and can only act through agents within their own states. He argued that if a corporation is doing business in another state then it should be subject to suit there as well; otherwise its rights would remain unprotected without any means for redress against wrongs committed against them in other states. Furthermore, he noted that allowing suits against foreign corporations would help ensure uniformity among different jurisdictions and prevent discrimination between citizens of different states who may seek relief for similar grievances before courts across America.