In Brant v. Virginia Coal and Iron Company et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a Virginia statute that allowed a corporation to purchase and hold real estate in the state was constitutional. The plaintiff, Brant, argued that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits states from denying any person the equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the statute did not deny any person the equal protection of the laws, as it applied equally to all corporations. Furthermore, the Court noted that the statute was a valid exercise of the state's police power, as it was intended to promote the public welfare. The Court also held that the statute did not violate the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution, which prohibits states from passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts. The Court reasoned that the statute did not impair any existing contracts, as it only applied to future contracts. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Virginia statute was constitutional and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment or the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Brant v. Virginia Coal and Iron Company et al., arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided. He argued that a state court had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a corporation chartered by another state, as it would be contrary to the Constitution of the United States which guarantees each State equal footing with respect to its own laws and those of other states. Furthermore, he argued that if such injunctions were allowed then corporations could easily evade their obligations by simply moving from one state to another or changing their corporate structure in order for them not to be subject to certain laws or regulations. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing this type of injunction would lead down a slippery slope where states could interfere with each other’s internal affairs without any legal basis for doing so; thus violating both federalism principles and constitutional rights guaranteed under Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 (the Full Faith & Credit Clause).