In the case of Rhea v. Smith, 1926, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a suit brought by an executor of an estate against a debtor to that estate. The plaintiff, Rhea, acting as executor for his deceased brother's estate in Tennessee sought payment from Smith who resided in Kentucky and owed money to the deceased. The lower courts ruled they lacked jurisdiction because both parties were citizens of Kentucky at the time when litigation began despite their different residences during contract formation and breach. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court it was held that diversity jurisdiction did exist under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of US Constitution which allows federal courts hear cases between "citizens" from different states if amount exceeds $75k (adjusted for inflation). This decision clarified that citizenship is determined not only by legal domicile but also where one has established residence or intends to remain indefinitely - thus allowing executors like Rhea sue out-of-state debtors on behalf estates they represent even if technically domiciled same state as defendant.

In the dissenting opinion for Rhea v. Smith, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring all public school teachers to take an oath of allegiance went against previous Supreme Court rulings and threatened individual liberties. The dissenting justices believed that such oaths were not only unnecessary but also potentially harmful, as they could be used to suppress freedom of speech and thought in schools. They pointed out that loyalty cannot be legislated or enforced by fear of punishment; instead, it must come from a genuine love for one's country and its principles. Furthermore, they warned that allowing states to impose these kinds of requirements on their employees could lead down a slippery slope towards more oppressive measures in the future.