In the case of Ex parte Hobbs, Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Kansas, et al., 1929, a group led by Mr. Hobbs sought to challenge an order from a lower court that had placed two insurance companies into receivership and appointed Mr. Hobbs as receiver. The Supreme Court denied their petition for writs of habeas corpus and prohibition on jurisdictional grounds. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the matter was not in its appellate jurisdiction nor did it involve federal questions or diversity citizenship issues necessary for original jurisdiction under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 & 2 respectively; therefore, they could not review decisions made by state courts regarding receiverships over corporations operating within those states' borders unless there were constitutional violations involved which weren't present here.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex parte Hobbs, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have intervened in this case. The justices believed that the Kansas state court had acted within its jurisdiction and authority when it issued a restraining order against an insurance company to prevent them from transferring their assets out of state. They felt that this was a matter of state law and regulation, rather than federal constitutional law. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as extending to corporations like insurance companies. In their view, these protections were intended for individual citizens rather than corporate entities.