In the case of State of Missouri, Ex Rel. Harshman v. Winterbottom, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a state could sue another state in federal court. The case arose when the State of Missouri sued the State of Ohio in federal court for damages caused by Ohio's failure to pay a debt. The Supreme Court held that a state cannot sue another state in federal court. The Court reasoned that the Constitution does not provide for such a suit, and that allowing such a suit would be contrary to the principles of comity between states. The Court also noted that the states have their own courts and remedies for such disputes, and that the federal courts should not interfere in such matters. The Court concluded that the suit was not permissible and dismissed the case.

In the case of State of Missouri, Ex Rel. Harshman v. Winterbottom, the dissenting opinion was that Congress had not given states authority to sue in federal court for breach of contract claims against other states or their officers. The majority opinion held that a state could bring such an action under certain circumstances and with permission from Congress; however, Justice Miller argued that this interpretation would be unconstitutional because it would allow one state to interfere with another's internal affairs without its consent. He further noted that if Congress wanted to grant such power they should have done so explicitly instead of leaving it up to judicial interpretation. Ultimately he concluded by stating his belief that allowing suits between two sovereigns without their mutual consent violated both constitutional principles and public policy considerations which made him unable to agree with the majority opinion on this matter.