In the case of J. Bacon & Sons v. Martin, 1938, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that required out-of-state corporations to consent to service of process on a local agent as a condition for doing business within the state violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, J. Bacon & Sons - an out-of-state corporation - argued that it had not given such consent and thus Kentucky courts lacked jurisdiction over it in a suit brought by defendant Martin. The court ruled against J. Bacon & Sons stating that when an out-of-state company conducts business within another state's borders, they implicitly agree to abide by its laws and regulations including consenting to be sued there if disputes arise from their operations or transactions in said state. This decision affirmed states' authority over foreign corporations operating within their jurisdictions while also upholding individuals' right to seek legal redress against these entities without having to travel outside their home states.

In the dissenting opinion for J. Bacon & Sons v. Martin, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring out-of-state businesses to appoint an in-state agent for service of process violated constitutional principles of interstate commerce and due process. The dissent contended that this requirement placed an undue burden on out-of-state companies by forcing them to maintain a physical presence within each state they conducted business in, which could potentially lead to significant costs and logistical challenges. Furthermore, it was suggested that such laws unfairly favored local businesses over their out-of-state competitors by creating additional barriers to entry into the market place. The dissent also raised concerns about potential abuses of power by states seeking to protect their own economic interests at the expense of free trade among states.