The U.S. Supreme Court case Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County (Cheng Shin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd., Real Party in Interest), 1986 revolved around the issue of jurisdiction and due process rights for foreign corporations involved in lawsuits within the United States. The dispute began when a Taiwanese tire manufacturer, Cheng Shin Rubber Industrial Co., was sued by an injured Californian motorcyclist who claimed that a defective tube caused his accident. Cheng Shin then sought indemnification from Japanese company Asahi Metal Industry which had supplied valve assemblies for the tubes but did not directly do business or advertise in California. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that it would violate due process to exercise personal jurisdiction over Asahi under these circumstances as there were insufficient contacts between Asahi and California to justify such action according to International Shoe standard - minimum contacts with forum state so as not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

In the dissenting opinion for Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County, Justice Brennan argued that jurisdiction should be determined by a "reasonableness" standard rather than a strict interpretation of minimum contacts. He believed that Asahi's knowledge and intent to serve the Californian market was sufficient to establish reasonable jurisdiction in this case. Furthermore, he emphasized that international commerce necessitates an understanding between parties about potential legal obligations across borders; therefore, it is not unreasonable for foreign manufacturers like Asahi to anticipate being haled into court in other jurisdictions where their products are sold indirectly through distribution chains. Thus, according to him, due process does not prohibit California from asserting jurisdiction over Asahi under these circumstances.