In the case of Hogue v. Southern Railway Co., 1967, the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a federal court could exercise jurisdiction over a state law claim brought by an employee against his employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiff, Mr. Hogue, had been injured while working for Southern Railway and sought compensation for his injuries under FELA. However, he filed his lawsuit in Georgia where he lived rather than in South Carolina where the injury occurred and where Southern Railway was incorporated. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether this constituted "forum shopping" - choosing to file a lawsuit in a particular location because it is perceived as being more favorable to one's case - which is generally discouraged by courts. In its decision, however, the Supreme Court ruled that forum shopping was not inherently wrong or unfair and that federal courts did have jurisdiction over such cases even if they involved state law claims. This ruling effectively expanded access to justice for workers who were injured on-the-job but lived outside of their employers' home states.

In the dissenting opinion for Hogue v. Southern Railway Co., Justice Fortas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Georgia law allowing employers to fire employees who refuse polygraph tests was incorrect. He believed that this ruling violated an individual’s right against self-incrimination, as protected by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S Constitution. According to him, compelling someone to take a lie detector test under threat of job loss is tantamount to coercion and thus infringes upon their constitutional rights. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how different states treat polygraph results; while some consider them reliable evidence admissible in court, others dismiss them as unreliable and unscientific. This lack of consensus further undermines any argument for compulsory testing at workplaces according to Justice Fortas' view.