In the case of Booth Fisheries Company et al. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al., 1925, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state's workers' compensation law could apply to injuries sustained by an employee while working in another state. The plaintiff, Booth Fisheries Company, argued that Wisconsin's laws should not apply as the injury occurred in Michigan and thus fell under its jurisdiction. However, both lower courts ruled against them stating that since the employment contract was made in Wisconsin and because they maintained their principal place of business there, it had jurisdiction over any disputes arising from said contract regardless of where actual work took place. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings on appeal affirming that states have authority to regulate contracts within their borders even if performance occurs elsewhere unless it infringes upon rights protected by federal law or constitutionally guaranteed liberties. This decision reinforced principles surrounding interstate commerce regulations and clarified how such rules interact with local labor laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Booth Fisheries Company et al. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al., Justice Sutherland argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing workers' compensation claims for injuries sustained outside of the state was an overreach of states' jurisdictional powers, infringing on federal authority and violating principles of interstate commerce. He contended that such laws could lead to conflicting judgments between states, creating legal uncertainty and potentially unfair outcomes for businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential violations of due process rights as companies may be subjected to laws in states where they have limited operations or presence.