In the case of Nevada et al. v. Hall et al., 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state may be sued in another state's court without its consent, thus rejecting the notion of sovereign immunity across states lines. The case arose when California residents Lowell and Lorraine Hall filed suit against the State of Nevada after being injured in an accident involving a vehicle owned by Nevada and operated by one of its employees within California borders. The Halls won their lawsuit in a California court, but Nevada appealed to higher courts arguing that it was immune from such lawsuits under interstate sovereign immunity principles. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating there is no constitutional provision or compelling reason for reading into the Constitution such immunity protection for individual States based on comity alone; hence, each State stands on equal footing with respect to its sovereignty rights and privileges including susceptibility to suits in other States' courts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Nevada v. Hall argued that the majority's decision failed to respect state sovereignty, a fundamental principle underpinning American federalism. The dissenters believed that allowing one state (in this case, California) to impose its laws on another sovereign entity (Nevada), violated principles of comity and threatened the balance between states within our federal system. They contended that each state should have immunity from being sued in another state's courts without their consent - an inherent aspect of sovereignty which they felt was implicitly recognized by the Constitution even though it is not explicitly stated therein. This view held that if any changes were needed regarding interstate lawsuits, such alterations should be made through constitutional amendment or congressional action rather than judicial interpretation.