The U.S. Supreme Court case Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. Read, Insurance Commissioner (1943) revolved around the issue of whether a state insurance commissioner could revoke an out-of-state insurer's license to do business in his state based on non-compliance with certain statutory requirements related to policyholder dividends and reserves for unearned premiums. The Texas-based Great Northern Life Insurance Company argued that it was being unfairly targeted because its home state did not have similar laws, thus violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution which requires states to respect each other’s laws and court decisions. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Great Northern Life Insurance Company stating that while there is indeed a constitutional obligation for states to give full faith and credit to public acts, records, etc., this does not mean they must substitute policies or statutes from another jurisdiction over their own when dealing with matters within their regulatory power such as insurance regulation.

In the dissenting opinion for Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. Read, Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of federalism and state rights to regulate insurance business within their borders. He contended that Texas had every right to protect its citizens by regulating insurance companies operating in its territory, including those incorporated elsewhere but doing business in Texas like Great Northern Life Insurance Company. According to him, the company willingly subjected itself to these regulations when it chose to operate there and should not be allowed now to challenge them on constitutional grounds after enjoying benefits of conducting business in Texas for years.