In the 1992 case United States National Bank of Oregon v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc., et al., the Supreme Court ruled that national banks could sell insurance in small towns. The dispute arose when USNB began selling insurance and was challenged by independent agents who claimed it violated federal law prohibiting such sales. However, a provision in an 1864 banking act allowed for this if the town had fewer than 5,000 residents. The court's decision hinged on whether subsequent legislation implicitly repealed this provision or not; they concluded it did not. The ruling clarified that repeals by implication are generally disfavored and must be supported by "overwhelming evidence." In this case, there was no clear intent from Congress to repeal the earlier statute allowing national banks to sell insurance in smaller communities. Therefore, USNB’s activities were deemed legal under existing laws at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for the United States National Bank of Oregon v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc., Justice Scalia argued that legislative history should not be used to interpret a statute when its text is clear and unambiguous. He criticized the majority's reliance on such history in determining whether national banks could sell insurance, stating it was unnecessary given the plain language of federal banking law. Furthermore, he contended that even if one were to consider legislative history, it did not support the majority's conclusion because Congress had never explicitly repealed or amended this provision allowing national banks to engage in insurance sales activities. Thus, according to Justice Scalia’s interpretation of statutory construction principles and historical context analysis methods applied by courts while interpreting laws passed by Congress; there was no legal basis for prohibiting these institutions from selling insurance products.