In the 1903 case Slater v. Mexican National Railroad Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Mexican National Railroad Company. The plaintiff, Charles A. Slater was a brakeman who suffered injuries while working for the railroad company in Mexico and sought compensation under Texas law where he had been hired. However, his contract explicitly stated that any legal disputes would be settled according to Mexican law which did not provide such compensations at that time. The court held that since Mr. Slater willingly entered into this agreement with full knowledge of its terms and conditions, he could not claim benefits under Texas law after being injured on duty in Mexico.

In the dissenting opinion for Slater v. Mexican National Railroad Company, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated principles of international law. He contended that a corporation doing business in multiple countries should be considered a citizen of each country where it operates, rather than just its place of incorporation. Thus, he believed that the Mexican National Railroad Company should have been treated as both an American and Mexican entity for jurisdictional purposes. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "doing business," arguing that merely having agents or offices in a state does not constitute doing business there if those agents do not have authority to bind the company legally or financially. In his view, this narrow definition would allow corporations to evade legal responsibility by simply claiming they were not "doing business" in certain locations despite maintaining significant operations there.