The case of Kenneth Lee Baker and Steven Robert Baker, represented by Melissa Thomas, versus General Motors Corporation in 1997 revolved around the issue of whether or not a state court could impose restrictions on speech made outside its jurisdiction. The dispute began when an expert witness for GM in a Missouri trial was barred from testifying elsewhere about certain aspects of his testimony due to a protective order issued by the Missouri court. When this same witness was later subpoenaed to testify in Michigan, he refused based on the previous order from Missouri. This led to litigation that eventually reached the Supreme Court which ruled unanimously that while courts can restrict disclosure within their own jurisdictions, they cannot extend those orders beyond their borders as it would violate principles of federalism and comity among states.

In the dissenting opinion for Baker v. General Motors Corporation, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Missouri court order that prohibited an expert witness from testifying in any other case about his findings related to GM vehicles' fuel systems. She argued that such orders could have chilling effects on experts who might be reluctant to testify if they knew they could be silenced by similar injunctions in future cases. Furthermore, she contended that this ruling violated principles of comity as it allowed one state’s courts (Missouri) to dictate what evidence another state’s courts (Michigan) may consider relevant and admissible. In her view, each state should have autonomy over its own rules of procedure and evidence without interference from another jurisdiction's rulings or decrees.