In the case of Blodgett v. Silberman et al., 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court in New York had jurisdiction over a dispute involving property located in Connecticut. The plaintiff, Blodgett, sought to recover assets from his deceased father's estate that were allegedly misappropriated by the defendants (Silberman and others), who served as executors of the estate. However, because all parties involved resided in New York but the property at issue was situated in Connecticut, there arose questions about which state's laws should apply and where litigation should occur. The Supreme Court ruled that while federal courts generally have broad authority to hear cases between citizens of different states or involving federal law issues under diversity jurisdiction principles; they do not possess power over real property located outside their territorial limits due to constraints imposed by common law doctrine known as "lex rei sitae" (law of place where property is situated). Therefore, it held that only Connecticut courts could adjudicate disputes concerning land within its borders even though other aspects might be litigated elsewhere.

In the dissenting opinion for Blodgett v. Silberman, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in its waters was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated principles of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that such laws were discriminatory against citizens of other states and served no legitimate purpose related to conservation or regulation of natural resources. Instead, he believed they were designed solely to provide economic benefits for residents at the expense of non-residents. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and earlier decisions which struck down similar laws on grounds they interfered with interstate commerce rights guaranteed by the Constitution.