In the case of National Bank of North America v. Associates of Obstetrics and Female Surgery, Inc., et al., 1975, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a national bank could charge interest rates in excess of state usury laws if it had branches in multiple states with varying interest rate caps. The court ruled that under federal law, specifically Section 85 of the National Bank Act (NBA), a national bank is allowed to charge out-of-state customers an interest rate permissible by its home state even if this exceeds those permitted by other states where it operates or has borrowers. This decision effectively allows banks operating nationally to "export" their home state's more lenient lending regulations across borders into stricter regulatory environments.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of National Bank of North America v. Associates of Obstetrics and Female Surgery, Inc., et al., Justice William J. Brennan Jr. argued that a bank's right to set-off should not be absolute but rather subject to equitable considerations in bankruptcy proceedings. He contended that when a debtor declares bankruptcy, all creditors should have an equal opportunity to recover their debts from the bankrupt estate; allowing banks an automatic preference would disrupt this balance and potentially leave other creditors with nothing. Furthermore, he suggested that such preferential treatment could encourage reckless lending practices by banks who know they can recoup their losses first in case of default. Thus, he believed it was necessary for courts to consider each situation on its merits before deciding whether or not a bank has the right to set-off against deposits held by them.