In the case of Tennessee et al. v. Dunlap, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that required non-resident litigants to post bond for costs in civil cases violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV or the Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Dunlap, a resident of Georgia had filed suit in Tennessee but was unable to proceed because he could not afford to post bond as required by state law for out-of-state residents. He argued this requirement discriminated against him based on his residency status and thus violated his constitutional rights. The court held that while states have considerable leeway in adopting rules for their courts aimed at regulating matters such as security for costs, these rules cannot discriminate against citizens from other states unless there is substantial justification for differential treatment. In this case, it found no valid reason why non-residents should be treated differently than residents when it comes to posting bonds in civil suits and therefore ruled that Tennessee's statute requiring nonresidents alone to furnish cost bonds was unconstitutional.

In the dissenting opinion for Tennessee et al. v. Dunlap, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a warrantless search of an automobile based on probable cause alone significantly eroded Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissent contended that this ruling effectively eliminated the requirement for law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant before conducting such searches, even when there is ample opportunity to do so without jeopardizing evidence or public safety. This interpretation of "exigent circumstances" was seen as overly broad and potentially subject to abuse by police authorities, undermining citizens' constitutional rights in favor of expedience in law enforcement procedures.