In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States, Plaintiffs in Error v. Andrew N. Laub, the court was asked to decide whether a state law could be used to collect debts from an individual who had moved out of that state and into another one. At issue was a New York statute which allowed creditors to sue debtors outside of New York if they had left the state with unpaid debts still owing them. The defendant argued that this violated his rights under Article IV Section 1 of the U.S Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) as it attempted to impose obligations on him beyond those he owed when he left New York State for Ohio where he now resided. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that while states are not required by Article IV Section 1 to recognize laws passed by other states, they must give full faith and credit “to all public acts” such as judgments rendered in courts within their own borders or those of other states; however, this did not extend so far as allowing enforcement against individuals who have since removed themselves from jurisdiction over them due solely to their having changed residence after incurring said obligation(s).

In the case of The United States v. Andrew N. Laub, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have reversed the decision of the Circuit Court and instead should have affirmed it. He reasoned that there was no evidence to support an indictment for larceny against Laub as his actions did not constitute a violation of any law or statute at the time they were committed. Furthermore, he noted that Congress had since passed legislation making such acts illegal but this could not be applied retroactively to punish Laub for something done before it became prohibited by law. As such, Justice McLean concluded that reversing the Circuit Court's ruling would be unjust and contrary to established legal principles regarding ex post facto laws and due process rights under both state and federal constitutions.