In the case of National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford v. Thompson, Superintendent of the Insurance Department of Missouri et al., 1929, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Thompson and his co-defendants. The issue at hand was whether a state could require an out-of-state insurance company to deposit securities with it before doing business within its borders. The National Fire Insurance Company argued that this requirement violated their rights under both the Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause as they were already complying with similar requirements in Connecticut where they were incorporated. However, Justice Holmes delivered the opinion for a unanimous court stating that insurance is not commerce but rather a contract on individual basis; thus states have power to regulate it without violating any constitutional provisions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford v. Thompson, Superintendent of the Insurance Department of Missouri, et al., argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider a key aspect: whether or not an insurance company incorporated under federal law could be subject to state regulations. The dissenters believed that this issue should have been addressed directly and resolved before any other considerations were made about specific regulatory measures imposed by individual states. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous court rulings on similar matters, arguing that these precedents did not support such broad authority for states over federally-incorporated entities operating within their borders. In essence, they felt that allowing such extensive state control would undermine federal supremacy and disrupt national commerce.