In the case of Huntington v. Attrill, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a New York law that classified fraudulent stock transactions as criminal could be enforced in other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. The defendant, Attrill, had been an officer of a corporation in New York and issued false statements about its financial status to sell stocks at inflated prices before moving to Maryland. When sued by Huntington for fraud in Maryland courts using New York's laws against such actions, he argued that this was not possible because his actions were not considered criminal under Maryland law. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Attrill stating that while civil judgments must be recognized across state lines due to full faith and credit clause; penal laws (laws intended to punish) are not required to be enforced outside their jurisdiction unless they serve public interest rather than vindicate public justice or deter offenses against state authority.

In the dissenting opinion for Huntington v. Attrill, Justice Gray argued that the majority's interpretation of what constituted a "penal law" was too narrow and inconsistent with previous rulings. He contended that laws imposing liability for fraudulent acts should be considered penal because they are designed to punish wrongdoers and deter others from engaging in similar behavior, not merely to compensate victims. Therefore, he believed such laws fell within the constitutional prohibition against states enforcing the penal laws of other states. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that New York’s stock corporation law did not impose penalties but simply provided remedies for aggrieved parties; instead, he saw it as clearly punitive given its intent to discourage fraud by holding guilty parties liable beyond their actual damages caused. Thus, according to Justice Gray's dissenting view, Maryland courts were constitutionally barred from enforcing this New York statute.