In the case of Phillips et vir v. California in 1966, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state could legally require its residents to purchase automobile insurance coverage as a condition for using public roads. The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Phillips, argued that this requirement violated their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it compelled them to enter into a contract with an insurance company against their will. The court ruled in favor of California, upholding the constitutionality of compulsory auto insurance laws on grounds that they serve a legitimate public interest by ensuring financial responsibility for damages caused by motor vehicle accidents. The justices reasoned that driving is not an absolute right but rather a privilege subject to reasonable regulation for public safety purposes. This decision affirmed states' authority to regulate motor vehicle operation within their borders and set important precedent supporting mandatory auto insurance laws nationwide.

In the dissenting opinion for Phillips et vir v. California, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring out-of-state corporations to consent to general jurisdiction as a condition of doing business in the state violated principles of due process. The dissent contended that such requirements placed an undue burden on interstate commerce and were inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings which held that states could not force non-resident defendants into their courts without some minimum level of contact or activity within the state. Furthermore, they believed this ruling gave too much power to individual states at the expense of federal authority and undermined national unity by allowing each state to set its own rules regarding corporate jurisdiction. They also expressed concern about potential abuse, suggesting that businesses might be coerced into accepting unfavorable terms in order to avoid being excluded from lucrative markets.