National Bank of Washington v. Texas was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1873. The case involved a dispute between the National Bank of Washington and the state of Texas over the bank's right to operate in the state. The bank had been chartered by Congress and was authorized to operate in any state in the Union. However, Texas had passed a law prohibiting the bank from operating in the state. The Supreme Court held that the Texas law was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the Constitution gave Congress the power to charter banks and that the state law was in conflict with this power. The Court also held that the state law was in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which states that federal laws are the supreme law of the land. The Court's decision was a victory for the National Bank of Washington and for the federal government. It established the principle that states cannot pass laws that conflict with federal laws. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to protect the rights of banks and other businesses to operate in any state in the Union.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in National Bank of Washington v. Texas, arguing that the majority's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment was too broad and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had not intended for this amendment to be used as a basis for expanding federal authority over state laws, but rather only meant it to protect citizens from discrimination based on race or color. Furthermore, he noted that if such an expansive interpretation were allowed then any law passed by Congress could override state legislation without regard for its constitutionality or legality under state law. In conclusion, Justice Field argued that allowing such an expansive reading of the Fourteenth Amendment would undermine states' rights and erode their sovereignty in favor of unchecked congressional power.