In the 1912 case of Selover, Bates and Company v. Walsh, the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether a Minnesota law that required out-of-state corporations to consent to being sued in local courts as a condition for doing business within state borders was constitutional. The plaintiff, an Illinois corporation operating in Minnesota, argued that this requirement violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving them of equal protection under the law and due process. However, the court ruled against them stating that states have power over foreign corporations conducting business within their jurisdiction and can impose conditions on those businesses' operations if they are not discriminatory or unreasonable. Therefore it upheld Minnesota's right to require out-of-state companies to submit themselves to its legal jurisdiction as part of doing business there.

In the dissenting opinion for Selover, Bates and Company v. Walsh, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's view that a Minnesota law requiring out-of-state corporations to consent to being sued in state courts as a condition of doing business within its borders was unconstitutional. He argued that states have the right to set conditions on foreign corporations seeking to do business within their jurisdiction. According to him, if these companies find such terms unacceptable or burdensome, they can choose not conduct their operations there. Furthermore, he contended that it is reasonable for states to require businesses operating under their laws and benefiting from them also be subjectable those same laws when disputes arise - including having lawsuits filed against them heard in local courts rather than federal ones.