In The United States v. The City Bank of Columbus, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state-chartered bank could be sued in federal court for debts it owed under its charter. At issue was whether such a suit would violate the Eleventh Amendment's prohibition on suits against states without their consent. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Taney, the Court held that Congress had no authority to pass laws allowing citizens to sue states or state-chartered banks in federal court and that any attempt by Congress to do so would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, since the City Bank of Columbus was chartered by Ohio and thus considered part of Ohio itself, suing it violated the Eleventh Amendment's protection from suits against states without their consent. As such, this case established important precedent regarding when individuals can bring lawsuits against state entities in federal courts and how far those protections extend under constitutional law.

In the case of The United States v. The City Bank of Columbus, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether or not a federal statute that imposed taxes on certain bank notes issued by state banks was constitutional. Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress did not have the power to impose such taxes under its authority granted by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. He further argued that if Congress had this power it would be an unconstitutional exercise as it would amount to taxation without representation and violate states' rights. Additionally, McLean believed that since these bank notes were issued for circulation within their respective states they should only be subject to taxation from those states and not from any other government body like Congress.