In the case of Kovacs v. Brewer (1957), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state could constitutionally require that an individual's property be sold to satisfy a judgment for alimony and support payments, even if this meant overriding federal bankruptcy laws which would otherwise protect some of that property from being seized. The court ruled in favor of Brewer, stating that states do have such authority under their police powers to enforce domestic relations orders and judgments. This decision effectively established precedence for allowing states to circumvent federal bankruptcy protections when it comes to enforcing family law-related financial obligations.

In the dissenting opinion for Kovacs v. Brewer, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's ruling that a state could not constitutionally require an out-of-state corporation to appoint an in-state agent for service of process as a condition of doing business within its borders. He argued that such requirements were necessary and appropriate measures for states to take in order to protect their citizens from potential harm caused by foreign corporations operating within their jurisdictions. Furthermore, he contended that these requirements did not violate the Due Process Clause because they did not deprive corporations of any fundamental rights or liberties; rather, they simply imposed reasonable conditions on their ability to conduct business activities within particular states. Finally, he asserted that if such requirements were deemed unconstitutional then it would effectively render many important and longstanding state laws regulating corporate behavior unenforceable which would be detrimental to public welfare.