In the United States v. Wells Fargo Bank et al., 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wells Fargo and other banks regarding a dispute over interest on government securities. The case arose from an interpretation of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) of 1978 which allowed contractors to claim interest on unpaid contract claims against federal agencies. The General Services Administration (GSA), who had purchased securities from these banks, argued that they were exempted as financial institutions under CDA and thus not entitled to such interests. However, the court held that GSA's interpretation was incorrect; while CDA did exclude certain types of contracts with financial institutions, it did not categorically exclude all contracts with them for claiming interest payments due to delays by federal agencies in settling contractual disputes.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Wells Fargo Bank et al., 1987, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a claim by the U.S. government against Wells Fargo Bank and other banks under federal common law was incorrect. The dissenters believed that this case should have been governed by state law rather than federal common law because there were no substantial federal interests involved in this particular dispute over mortgage loans made to veterans. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a specific statute related to these types of loans, arguing that Congress did not intend for it to be used as a basis for creating new rights or remedies under federal common law. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on banking practices and financial stability due to uncertainty created by allowing such claims under federal common law.