The Provident Institution for Savings v. Malone case in 1910 revolved around the constitutionality of a Massachusetts law that required savings banks to pay into a state insurance fund designed to protect depositors if the bank failed. The Provident Institution for Savings argued that this requirement violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights, specifically due process and equal protection under the law. However, the U.S Supreme Court upheld the validity of this law, stating it was within Massachusetts' police power to regulate businesses such as banks for public welfare purposes. Furthermore, they found no violation of equal protection since all savings banks were subject to similar regulations and requirements by virtue of being part of an inherently risky industry where depositor's funds needed safeguarding.

In the dissenting opinion for Provident Institution for Savings v. Malone, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Massachusetts law regarding savings banks and their tax obligations. He argued that the state law did not intend to exempt these institutions from all forms of taxation but only from certain types. The justice believed that a more accurate reading of the statute would allow for taxes on real estate owned by such institutions, as this was not explicitly prohibited in the legislation. Furthermore, he contended that if lawmakers had intended to grant complete tax immunity to savings banks, they would have done so clearly and unambiguously rather than leaving it open to interpretation or inference.