In the case of Chapman et al. v. Wintroath, 1919, the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that required foreign corporations to consent to service of process on an in-state agent as a condition for doing business within the state violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were two out-of-state corporations who had been sued in Pennsylvania courts and argued they did not have sufficient contacts with Pennsylvania for its courts to exercise jurisdiction over them. They contended that being forced by statute to appoint an agent for service of process constituted coercion and thus violated their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument, ruling that such laws do not violate due process provided they are applied only against companies actually conducting business within the state's borders. It held that states have authority under their police powers to regulate activities of foreign corporations operating within their territory and can require those businesses designate someone upon whom legal papers may be served locally.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chapman et al. v. Wintroath argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting non-citizens from owning land was unjust and discriminatory. The dissenting justices believed that this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees all individuals equal protection under the law, regardless of their citizenship status. They contended that property ownership is a fundamental right and should not be denied based on nationality alone. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on foreign investment and international relations if such laws were allowed to stand unchallenged by courts.