In the 1925 case of Hay v. May Department Stores Company, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of May Department Stores Company, affirming a lower court's decision that dismissed a complaint by Mr. Hay for lack of jurisdictional grounds. The dispute originated from an alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation by May Department Store towards Mr. Hay regarding his employment termination and subsequent financial losses he suffered as a result thereof. Mr.Hay was an employee at one branch located in Missouri while the company had its principal place of business in New York; hence it was considered to be domiciled there for diversity purposes under federal law. The Supreme Court held that since both parties were residents within the same state (Missouri), there could not be any diversity jurisdiction which is required for such cases to proceed before Federal courts according to Article III Section 2 Clause 1of US Constitution . Therefore, this matter should have been pursued through state courts instead.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hay v. May Department Stores Company et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which dismissed an antitrust suit against May Department Stores, was incorrect. The dissent believed that there were sufficient allegations made by Hay to warrant a trial and disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "direct" versus "indirect" injury under antitrust laws. They contended that if businesses could escape liability for anti-competitive practices simply because their actions caused indirect harm, it would undermine the effectiveness of these laws in protecting competition and consumers from monopolistic behavior. Therefore, they felt this dismissal denied Hay his right to have his claims heard before a jury.