The U.S. Supreme Court case Kulko v. Superior Court of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco (Horn, Real Party in Interest), 1977, revolved around a dispute over jurisdiction between two parties who were divorced in Haiti but lived separately in New York and California respectively. The couple's daughter decided to live with her mother in California after visiting her during summer vacation. Subsequently, the mother filed suit against the father seeking increased child support payments due to changed circumstances. The issue was whether or not a state court could exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state resident based on his sending their minor children into that state at their request or acquiescence without any intent by him that they remain there indefinitely. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for a state court to assert jurisdiction under these circumstances as it violated due process rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment because such acts did not constitute sufficient contacts with the forum State.

In the dissenting opinion for Kulko v. Superior Court of California, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "minimum contacts" in relation to jurisdictional issues. He argued that Mr. Kulko had established sufficient contact with California by sending his children there and should therefore be subject to its courts' jurisdiction for divorce proceedings initiated by Mrs. Horn (Kulko). The justice believed that this case was not about imposing burdens on interstate travel or commerce but rather ensuring fairness in legal disputes between parties residing in different states. He emphasized that a person who avails himself of the benefits and protections offered by a state should also bear certain obligations, including being answerable before its courts if necessary.