Tarble's Case was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1871. The case involved a man named Aaron Tarble, who had been convicted of a crime in Illinois and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Tarble had been living in Wisconsin at the time of his conviction, and he argued that the conviction was invalid because he had not been present in Illinois when the crime was committed. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Tarble, holding that the conviction was invalid because he had not been present in the state of Illinois when the crime was committed. The Court reasoned that the Constitution of the United States did not allow a state to exercise jurisdiction over a person who was not present within its borders. This ruling established the principle that a state cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person who is not present within its borders. The decision in Tarble's Case was significant because it established the principle that a state cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person who is not present within its borders. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it has been used to protect the rights of individuals who are not present in a state when a crime is committed.

In Tarble's Case, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over an individual who was not physically present in that state. The majority opinion held that the defendant did not have sufficient contacts with the forum state for it to exercise personal jurisdiction over him. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that due process requires states to be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over individuals who are absent from their territory but whose conduct has caused injury within its borders. He reasoned that since the defendant had committed acts which resulted in harm being suffered by citizens of Illinois, he should be subject to suit there regardless of his physical presence or lack thereof. Furthermore, Field noted that if such a rule were adopted then it would provide greater protection for those injured by out-of-state actors and ensure they can seek justice without having to travel long distances or incur significant costs associated with bringing suit elsewhere.