In the case of Hawes v. State of Georgia in 1921, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a state law requiring non-residents to post bond before they could sue for libel was unconstitutional. The plaintiff, Hawes, an Alabama resident and publisher of a newspaper circulated in Georgia, had been sued for libel by several individuals from Georgia. Under Georgia's laws at the time, out-of-state residents were required to post bond before they could file suit against someone within their borders; this requirement did not apply to residents of the state. In its decision, the court held that this provision violated both due process and equal protection clauses under Fourteenth Amendment as it discriminated against non-residents seeking legal redress in Georgian courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Hawes v. State of Georgia, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's decision to overturn Hawes' conviction was based on a misinterpretation of the law and an overreach of federal authority into state matters. He contended that there was no violation of due process as claimed by Hawes because he had been given a fair trial in accordance with Georgia state laws at that time. Furthermore, he believed it wasn't within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to question or interfere with how states conduct their criminal proceedings unless there is clear evidence of constitutional violations which, according to him, were not present in this case. Therefore, he disagreed with his colleagues' decision to reverse and remand the case back to lower courts for retrial.