In the case of Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 1910, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Oklahoma law that required state banks to contribute to a depositors' guaranty fund designed to protect bank customers if their bank failed. The plaintiff, Noble State Bank, argued that this requirement was unconstitutional as it violated due process rights by taking property without compensation and also interfered with interstate commerce. However, the court ruled in favor of defendant Charles Haskell (Governor of Oklahoma), stating that states have broad powers under their police power authority to regulate businesses for public welfare purposes such as protecting consumers from financial loss caused by bank failures. This decision established precedent for government regulation and intervention in economic affairs.

In the dissenting opinion for Noble State Bank v. Haskell, Justice Moody argued that the Oklahoma law requiring banks to contribute to a depositors' guarantee fund was unconstitutional. He believed it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause by taking property without consent and without providing compensation. The majority had ruled that this requirement served a public purpose of ensuring financial stability, but Justice Moody disagreed with this interpretation of "public use." He contended that while such laws might be beneficial or popular, they did not justify infringing on property rights protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse if states were allowed to seize private funds under broad interpretations of "public use."