In the case of Van Dusen, U.S. District Judge, et al. v. Barrack, Administratrix, et al., 1963, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning federal procedural law and venue transfer in multidistrict litigation cases. The plaintiffs were survivors of victims who died in an airplane crash near Boston; they filed wrongful death suits against multiple defendants including airlines and aircraft manufacturers in Pennsylvania district court due to its more favorable statute of limitations laws compared to Massachusetts'. However, the defendants sought to move these cases back to Massachusetts arguing that it was a more appropriate venue given where the accident occurred. The Supreme Court held that when civil actions are transferred from one district court to another under Section 1404(a) for convenience purposes or because it is "in interest of justice", transferee courts should apply state law which would have been applied if there had been no change of venue - meaning Pennsylvania's laws should be used even though proceedings moved geographically elsewhere (Massachusetts). This ruling ensured fairness by preventing parties from manipulating legal outcomes through strategic selection or avoidance of certain jurisdictions' rules.

In the dissenting opinion for Van Dusen v. Barrack, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision undermined the purpose of Section 1404(a) and would lead to forum shopping. He contended that this section was intended to provide convenience for defendants rather than plaintiffs, and therefore should not be used as a tool by plaintiffs to choose their preferred state law through strategic venue selection. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential manipulation of judicial procedures if transfer did not change applicable state laws. In his view, allowing transferred cases to retain original jurisdiction’s law could result in an influx of suits filed in jurisdictions with favorable laws only to be transferred elsewhere later on - essentially enabling litigants' ability to select their desired legal rules regardless of where proceedings actually take place.