In the Southern Surety Company v. State of Oklahoma case in 1915, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a state could regulate insurance rates. The Southern Surety Company, an insurance company incorporated in Missouri but operating in Oklahoma, argued that its business was interstate commerce and thus beyond the regulatory power of individual states under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, Oklahoma insisted it had authority to control insurance rates within its borders as part of its police powers to protect public welfare. The Supreme Court sided with Oklahoma ruling that while insurance contracts might involve elements of interstate commerce, they were not themselves "commerce" per se and therefore fell outside federal jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause. Instead, they were essentially local transactions subject to regulation by each state where such businesses operated. This decision affirmed states' rights over regulating their own industries against claims from corporations seeking protection under federal law for their operations across multiple states.

In the dissenting opinion for Southern Surety Company v. State of Oklahoma, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly interpret and apply constitutional principles regarding due process rights. The dissenting justices believed that the state law requiring out-of-state insurance companies to appoint a local agent who could be served with legal papers violated these companies' due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that this requirement unfairly subjected non-resident corporations to jurisdiction in Oklahoma courts without their consent or any meaningful connection between their business activities and the state itself. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that such appointment constituted "implied consent" by these corporations to be sued in Oklahoma courts, arguing instead that true consent cannot be coerced or imposed by law but must be freely given.