In the 1940 Supreme Court case Milliken et al. v. Meyer, Administratrix, the court ruled in favor of Milliken and others by upholding that a state has jurisdiction over its residents regardless of their physical presence within the state at any given time. The case arose when Wyoming attempted to probate a Colorado resident's estate who owned property in both states. The defendant argued that Wyoming lacked personal jurisdiction because they did not personally serve him with process within its borders; instead, he was served while residing in Colorado where he had moved permanently before his death. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that domicile alone is sufficient for personal jurisdiction as it implies an individual's consent to be governed by a state’s laws and therefore subject to its courts' decisions. This decision established important precedent regarding how far-reaching a state's power can extend over its citizens or those owning property within it even if they are physically absent from the territory.

In the dissenting opinion for Milliken et al. v. Meyer, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision violated principles of due process by allowing a state to exercise jurisdiction over an individual who was not present in the state and had no property or business there. He contended that this extension of power beyond a state's borders contradicted traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, as well as historical precedent regarding personal jurisdiction. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses if states were permitted to assert their authority so broadly without sufficient checks on their power. In his view, such unchecked authority could lead to unjust outcomes where individuals are subjected to laws and courts with which they have no meaningful connection or opportunity for defense.