In the 1932 case Washington ex rel. Bond & Goodwin & Tucker, Inc. v. Superior Court of Washington for Spokane County et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving a construction contract and bond issue in relation to public works projects in the state of Washington. The appellants, Bond & Goodwin & Tucker, Inc., were contractors who had entered into an agreement with Spokane County to construct roads but failed to complete their work due to financial difficulties. They sought protection under federal bankruptcy laws while also attempting to prevent enforcement actions by local authorities regarding performance bonds they had issued as part of their contractual obligations. The court held that although federal bankruptcy law generally supersedes state law, it does not interfere with states' rights or powers related specifically to public contracts and associated surety bonds intended for protecting public interests and funds involved in such projects. This decision affirmed that when it comes down to matters concerning public contracts at a state level - even if there is involvement from bankrupt entities - these issues are within the jurisdictional purview of individual states rather than being subject solely or primarily under federal control.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Washington ex rel. Bond & Goodwin & Tucker, Inc. v. Superior Court of Washington for Spokane County et al., 1932, argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles and precedent regarding jurisdictional matters between federal and state courts. The dissent contended that the issue at hand should have been resolved by applying existing laws rather than creating new ones through judicial interpretation. They believed that this approach would lead to confusion and inconsistency in future cases involving similar issues, as it blurred the lines between federal and state jurisdictions without providing clear guidelines or criteria for determining which court had authority over such disputes. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential violations of defendants' rights due to this lack of clarity around jurisdictional boundaries.