CSHARES Union Bank of Chicago v. Kansas City Bancshares was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1997. The case involved a dispute between two banks, Union Bank of Chicago and Kansas City Bancshares, over the ownership of a loan portfolio. The dispute arose when Union Bank of Chicago sold a loan portfolio to Kansas City Bancshares, but then later attempted to repurchase the portfolio. Kansas City Bancshares refused to sell the portfolio back to Union Bank of Chicago, and Union Bank of Chicago sued. The Supreme Court held that Union Bank of Chicago had no right to repurchase the loan portfolio, as the contract between the two banks did not provide for such a right. The Court also held that Kansas City Bancshares had the right to keep the loan portfolio, as it had already paid for it. The Court further held that Union Bank of Chicago was not entitled to any damages, as it had not suffered any actual harm. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Union Bank of Chicago had no right to repurchase the loan portfolio from Kansas City Bancshares, and that Kansas City Bancshares had the right to keep the loan portfolio. The Court also held that Union Bank of Chicago was not entitled to any damages.

CSHARES In the dissenting opinion of Union Bank of Chicago v. Kansas City Bancshares, Justice Scalia argued that the majority had misapplied a prior Supreme Court decision in order to reach its conclusion. He noted that under the precedent set by this earlier case, a court must consider whether there is an “actual conflict” between two laws before it can determine which law should take precedence over another. In this particular case, he argued that no such actual conflict existed and thus the lower court's ruling should have been upheld without further analysis or consideration from the Supreme Court. Furthermore, he pointed out that even if an actual conflict did exist between these two laws, then it would be up to Congress—not courts—to resolve any potential conflicts through legislation rather than judicial interpretation and application of existing statutes. Ultimately, Justice Scalia concluded his dissent by emphasizing his belief that allowing courts to decide matters like this one could lead to dangerous precedents being established for future cases involving similar issues and circumstances.