In Hollingsworth v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that a state law requiring non-residents to post bond before bringing suit in its courts was unconstitutional. The case arose when William and Mary College sued Thomas Hollingsworth for failing to pay tuition fees owed by his son, who had attended the college as an out-of-state student. Hollingsworth argued that he should not be required to post bond because he was not a resident of Virginia and thus could not be subject to its laws. The Supreme Court agreed with him, ruling that states cannot impose special requirements on non-residents seeking access to their courts beyond those imposed on residents; such restrictions violate due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause. This decision established important precedent protecting individuals' right of access to court regardless of their residency status.

In Hollingsworth v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that a state law which prohibited citizens from bringing suits in federal court against their own state was unconstitutional. The majority opinion argued that such laws violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and thus could not be enforced. However, Justice Samuel Chase dissented on this issue, arguing that states had an inherent right to protect themselves from litigation brought by their own citizens in federal courts. He further argued that allowing such suits would undermine the sovereignty of each individual state and create chaos within our system of government as it is currently structured. Ultimately, he concluded that Congress should have exclusive power over any matters concerning disputes between states and individuals or other entities outside those respective states' borders; however, when it comes to intra-state disputes involving its own citizens then each individual state should retain full authority over them without interference from Congress or any other body outside its jurisdiction