The Minnesota Commercial Men's Association v. Benn case in 1922 revolved around the constitutionality of a state law that allowed an insurance company to be sued outside its home jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Minnesota Commercial Men's Association (MCMA), was a mutual life insurance company based in Minnesota but had policyholders across various states including New York where Mrs. Benn, the defendant and policyholder resided. After her husband’s death, she filed a claim for his life insurance benefits which MCMA refused to pay out on grounds that he misrepresented his health condition when applying for coverage. Mrs. Benn then sued MCMA in New York courts despite their contract stating all legal disputes must be settled within Minnesota jurisdictions only - this clause was however invalidated by local laws allowing suits against foreign corporations if they do business within the state. The U.S Supreme Court upheld these laws as constitutional under due process rights provided by Fourteenth Amendment; it ruled that since MCMA conducted substantial business activities and derived considerable profits from New York residents like Mr.Benn, it should reasonably expect to answer lawsuits there too.

In the dissenting opinion for Minnesota Commercial Men's Association v. Benn, Justice Holmes argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of the law and constitutionality. He believed that there was no violation of due process rights as claimed by the plaintiff because they were not deprived of their property without a fair hearing or legal procedure. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on equal protection clause violations, stating that it is within a state’s power to classify businesses differently based on reasonable grounds such as public interest and welfare considerations. Therefore, according to him, different tax rates imposed on domestic and foreign corporations did not constitute discrimination but rather reflected legitimate policy decisions made by lawmakers at state level.