In the case of Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1896 that a law passed by Congress which allowed national banks to charge interest on unpaid balances was constitutional. The plaintiff, Twin City Bank, argued that this law violated their Fifth Amendment rights because it deprived them of property without due process of law and denied them equal protection under the laws. However, the court disagreed with these arguments stating that Congress has broad powers to regulate commerce and banking activities within its jurisdiction including setting rules for charging interest on loans made by national banks. Furthermore, they stated that there was no violation of equal protection as all national banks were subject to same regulations and conditions under this law.

In the dissenting opinion for Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, Justice White disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the National Banking Act. He argued that it did not authorize a national bank to charge interest on unpaid interest or compound interest, which he believed was at issue in this case. According to him, allowing such charges would be contrary to common law principles and could lead to abuses by banks. Furthermore, he contended that if Congress had intended for national banks to have such power, they would have explicitly stated so in the legislation instead of leaving it up for judicial interpretation.