The U.S. Supreme Court case Barnard v. Thorstenn (1988) dealt with the constitutionality of a residency requirement for bar admission in the Virgin Islands. The Committee of Bar Examiners required applicants to have been residents for at least one year prior to their application, and continue residing there until admitted into practice. This rule was challenged by Eric I. Throsten, who had passed the bar exam but did not meet this residency requirement as he lived in New York City most of the time while maintaining an office in St.Thomas where he practiced law occasionally. In its decision, the court ruled that such a residency requirement violated both equal protection and privileges or immunities clauses under Section 1 of Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminated against non-residents without serving any substantial state interest justifying such discrimination. The court noted that although states can impose reasonable residence requirements related to voting or welfare benefits due to unique factors associated with these areas, they cannot do so when it comes to practicing law since legal skills are portable and not dependent on location.

In the dissenting opinion for Barnard v. Thorstenn, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and undermined states' rights to regulate their own legal professions. He contended that the Virgin Islands' residency requirement for bar applicants was not an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, as it served a legitimate local interest in ensuring competent representation by lawyers familiar with local laws and customs. Furthermore, he pointed out that many U.S. states have similar requirements without facing constitutional challenges. Therefore, he believed this ruling could potentially open those regulations up to scrutiny as well.