In the 1912 case of McDermott v. State of Wisconsin, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that required non-resident corporations to appoint an agent within the state for service of process violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, McDermott, argued that this requirement unfairly burdened out-of-state companies and infringed upon their constitutional rights. However, the court disagreed with this argument and upheld Wisconsin's statute as constitutional. The justices reasoned that states have a legitimate interest in ensuring they can effectively enforce their laws against all entities operating within their borders - including those based outside of them. They further noted that requiring businesses to maintain an in-state representative does not impose any unreasonable or undue hardship on these firms; rather it simply ensures they are accountable for any legal actions brought against them in Wisconsin courts. This ruling affirmed states' authority to regulate foreign corporations doing business within their jurisdiction and set important precedent regarding interstate commerce regulation.

In the dissenting opinion for McDermott v. State of Wisconsin, Justice Holmes argued that the state did not have a right to interfere with interstate commerce by imposing restrictions on insurance companies based outside of Wisconsin. He contended that such interference was unconstitutional as it violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution which grants Congress exclusive power over interstate trade. The justice believed that while states could regulate businesses within their borders, they should not be allowed to impose conditions or limitations on out-of-state corporations seeking to do business in their jurisdiction. This would effectively allow them control over activities beyond their boundaries and infringe upon federal authority over interstate commerce.