The Bank of the United States v. The Planters' Bank of Georgia was a Supreme Court case that centered around whether or not the federal government had authority to create a national bank and if it did, could states tax its branches within their borders. The court ruled in favor of the Planters’ Bank, finding that Congress did have power to establish such an institution but also found that states were able to impose taxes on those branches located within their boundaries. This decision established precedent for future cases involving state taxation and federal powers as well as providing clarity regarding how far each entity's jurisdiction extended when it came to matters like this one.

In the case of The Bank of the United States v. The Planters' Bank of Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to incorporate a bank and thus could not grant such power to the President. He further stated that if Congress did have this power, it would be unconstitutional for them to exercise it as they were attempting to do with this particular case. Marshall believed that any attempt by Congress or the President to create corporations was an encroachment on state sovereignty and should be struck down as unconstitutional. Furthermore, he argued that even if there was some constitutional basis for incorporating banks, then only those states who had consented should be allowed access; since Georgia had not given its consent in this instance then their incorporation must fail. In conclusion, Marshall maintained his position against federal interference with state sovereignty and urged caution when considering whether or not certain powers are within congressional purview under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution