In the 1953 case Alton v. Alton, the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a District of Columbia law allowing for "divorce a mensa et thoro" (legal separation) could be converted into an absolute divorce in another jurisdiction without both parties' consent. The petitioner, Mrs. Alton, had obtained such a legal separation from her husband in D.C., and Mr. Alton subsequently moved to Florida where he unilaterally converted it into an absolute divorce under Florida law. The Supreme Court ruled that this action violated Mrs. Alton's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution as she did not have proper notice or opportunity to be heard on her husband's actions in Florida court which significantly altered her marital status and potential property rights. Therefore, they held that while states generally have broad power over domestic relations matters within their borders, they cannot dissolve marriages or alter related obligations imposed by other jurisdictions without affording all parties involved adequate notice and opportunity to contest.

In the dissenting opinion for Alton v. Alton, it was argued that the court's decision to deny federal jurisdiction in a divorce case involving U.S. citizens residing abroad contradicted previous rulings and interpretations of law. The dissenting justices believed that the majority had misinterpreted both statutory language and legislative intent when determining whether or not federal courts have jurisdiction over such cases. They pointed out that Congress has historically granted broad powers to federal courts in matters concerning American citizens living overseas, including issues related to marriage and divorce. Therefore, they contended that this case should fall within those parameters as well. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative implications of denying federal jurisdiction in these types of cases - particularly how it could leave American citizens without legal recourse while living abroad.