Wilkinson v. Nebraska, Ex Rel. Cleveland Society for Savings was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state can tax a national bank. The case was brought by the Cleveland Society for Savings, a national bank, against the state of Nebraska. The bank argued that the state's tax on its deposits was unconstitutional because it violated the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the state's tax was unconstitutional because it interfered with the federal government's exclusive power to regulate national banks. The Court also held that the state's tax was an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. The Court concluded that the state's tax was invalid and that the bank was not required to pay it. This case established the principle that states cannot tax national banks in a manner that interferes with the federal government's exclusive power to regulate them.

In Wilkinson v. Nebraska, Ex Rel. Cleveland Society for Savings, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state statute that allowed savings banks to invest in bonds of other states violated the Constitution's Contract Clause. In a 5-4 decision, the majority held that it did not violate the clause and upheld the statute as constitutional. Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that allowing such investments would create an unequal burden on citizens of different states and thus should be found unconstitutional under Article I Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibits any state from passing laws impairing contracts between two or more states without their consent. He argued further that this type of investment could lead to economic instability by creating too much risk for investors who are unable to diversify their portfolios across multiple jurisdictions with varying regulations and standards governing financial institutions like savings banks. Finally, he noted how this ruling could set precedent for future cases involving similar issues where one state might pass legislation affecting another’s economy without its consent or approval—a situation which he believed was contrary to both federalism principles as well as public policy considerations regarding interstate commerce regulation