In the case of Williams et al. v. North Carolina, 1944, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state could disregard divorce decrees granted in another state under its own laws if it deemed those laws to be against its public policy. The appellants were two couples who had left their spouses in North Carolina and moved to Nevada where they obtained divorces after six weeks' residence (the minimum required by Nevada law) before marrying each other. Upon returning to North Carolina, they were charged with bigamy as North Carolina did not recognize their Nevada divorces due to insufficient residency requirements according to NC's standards. The court ruled that while states are generally obliged under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution (Article IV Section 1) to respect judicial proceedings of other states, this obligation is limited when it comes into conflict with a state’s ability to regulate domestic relations within its borders - an area traditionally reserved for local control. Therefore, despite having legally divorced and remarried in accordance with Nevada law, because these actions violated North Carolina's policies on marriage dissolution and residency requirements for divorcees intending remarrying immediately thereafter; both couples were found guilty of bigamy upon return.

In the dissenting opinion for Williams et al. v. North Carolina, Justice Owen Roberts argued that the majority's decision undermined the principles of federalism and comity among states by allowing a state to ignore another state's valid divorce decree. He contended that if one state has jurisdiction over a couple and grants them a divorce, other states should respect this judgment under full faith and credit clause of Constitution rather than re-litigate it based on their own laws or public policy considerations. He also pointed out potential negative consequences such as legal uncertainty for divorced couples who might be considered still married in some states but not others, leading to confusion about property rights, inheritance issues etc., which could have been avoided with uniform recognition of divorces across all states.