The U.S. Supreme Court case California Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt (2015) revolved around the issue of whether a state agency could be sued in another state's court without its consent, challenging the precedent set by Nevada v. Hall (1979). Gilbert P. Hyatt, an inventor and resident of Nevada, had been audited by the California Franchise Tax Board who claimed he owed back taxes from when he lived in California. In response, Hyatt sued the board in Nevada for alleged abusive audit practices and invasion of privacy among other charges; winning millions in damages initially reduced on appeal to $1 million. In 2016, The Supreme Court was evenly divided 4-4 due to Justice Scalia’s death leaving lower court ruling intact but setting no nationwide precedent. However, upon re-hearing with full bench after appointment of Justice Gorsuch it ruled against Mr.Hyatt overruling previous decision that allowed such lawsuits between states.

In the dissenting opinion for California Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed with the majority's decision to overrule Nevada v. Hall (1979). The dissent argued that there was no compelling reason to overturn this precedent which allowed a state to be sued in another state’s courts without its consent. They believed that principles of federalism and comity should allow states to decide whether they will grant or deny immunity from suit in their own courts to other states. Furthermore, they pointed out that Congress has not acted on this issue despite having ample opportunity since 1979 indicating it did not see any significant problems arising from the ruling in Nevada v. Hall.