The U.S. Supreme Court case Roth v. Delano, in 1949, revolved around the issue of whether or not a state could tax national banks on their shares at rates higher than those applied to other financial institutions within the same state. The Attorney General of Michigan argued that such taxation was permissible under federal law and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. However, Comptroller of Currency and others disagreed, asserting that this constituted discrimination against national banking associations. In its decision, the Supreme Court sided with Delano et al., ruling that states cannot impose discriminatory taxes on national bank shares when compared to similar entities like savings banks or insurance companies operating within their jurisdiction. The court held that such differential treatment violated both federal statutes governing taxation of these entities as well as principles enshrined in the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Roth v. Delano, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to uphold a federal law prohibiting states from taxing national banks was incorrect. He believed this interpretation of the Constitution and subsequent legislation unfairly favored national banks over state-chartered ones by exempting them from certain taxes. This, he contended, disrupted balance between state and federal powers in banking regulation. Furthermore, he asserted that historical context supported his view: when Congress passed laws establishing national banks during Civil War era, it intended these institutions to coexist with state-chartered counterparts on equal terms rather than enjoy special privileges. Therefore, according to him such tax exemption should not be upheld as it contradicts original legislative intent and disrupts equilibrium within dual banking system.