In the case of Idaho Irrigation Company, Ltd., et al. v. Gooding et al., 1923, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a state law that required corporations to maintain their principal office within the state and keep all records there violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Idaho Irrigation Company had its main office in Salt Lake City, Utah but operated extensively in Idaho where it owned property and conducted business activities. The company argued that this requirement imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce and infringed upon their constitutional rights by forcing them to relocate their offices. The court ruled against the irrigation company stating that states have regulatory power over corporations operating within their boundaries for public interest purposes such as taxation or litigation convenience even if they are incorporated elsewhere. It held that requiring companies to maintain an office and records within a state does not violate due process nor interfere unduly with interstate commerce since these requirements were reasonable regulations serving legitimate interests of local governance.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Idaho Irrigation Company, Ltd., et al. v. Gooding et al., argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to recognize the rights and interests of irrigation companies under state law. The dissent pointed out that these companies had invested significant resources into developing water infrastructure based on their understanding of existing laws and regulations, which allowed them to use public waters for commercial purposes. They believed that changing this interpretation without providing any form of compensation or protection for these investments was unfair and potentially unconstitutional. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that there were no substantial differences between using water for irrigation versus other uses like power generation; arguing instead each use has unique characteristics and impacts which should be considered separately by law.