In the 1933 case of Trotter, Guardian v. Tennessee, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tennessee. The case involved a dispute over inheritance tax assessed by the state on property left to Mrs. Trotter's ward from her deceased husband's estate. Mrs. Trotter argued that since she was not a resident of Tennessee at the time of her husband’s death and had no intention to return there, it was unconstitutional for them to impose an inheritance tax on his estate as this violated due process under Fourteenth Amendment rights. However, the court held that domicile is determined by physical presence and intent; hence if someone leaves their home with no intention to return then they have lost their domicile status in that place but if they leave with an indefinite or uncertain plan regarding returning then they retain their domicile status until new one is acquired elsewhere. The court found out Mr.Trotter retained his domicile in Tennessee even though he died while temporarily residing outside state because he always intended to come back thus making his estate subjectable for taxation.

In the dissenting opinion for Trotter, Guardian v. Tennessee, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a state law that allowed for the sterilization of individuals deemed "feeble-minded." He argued that this law was unconstitutional as it violated an individual's right to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, he contended that such legislation could lead to dangerous precedents where states might enact laws allowing for other forms of physical mutilation or even death in order to prevent potential societal issues. The justice also expressed concern over how these determinations were made about who was considered "feeble-minded," arguing there was too much room for subjective judgment and potential abuse of power by those making these decisions.