In the case of York v. Texas in 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether a state could exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who was served with process while temporarily within its borders. The plaintiff, York, had sued the State of Texas for damages related to land grants that were allegedly fraudulently obtained by the state. While visiting Washington D.C., a representative from Texas was served with papers relating to this lawsuit on behalf of his home state. The key issue before the court was whether or not this service constituted proper notice and thus allowed for personal jurisdiction over Texas in another state's courts. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not; states are immune from legal proceedings in other states unless they consent to such jurisdiction under principles of sovereign immunity. This decision reaffirmed federalism principles and clarified rules regarding inter-state lawsuits at a time when American society and economy were becoming increasingly interconnected across state lines.

The dissenting opinion in the case of York v. Texas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring non-residents to pay higher court fees than residents was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed this violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which prohibits states from discriminating against citizens of other states without justification. They contended that such discrimination could not be justified by claiming it encouraged people to become residents or discouraged frivolous lawsuits, as these reasons did not relate directly enough to the differential treatment. Furthermore, they pointed out that if every state adopted similar laws, non-residents would face significant barriers in accessing justice across state lines - an outcome clearly at odds with constitutional principles promoting national unity and equality among citizens.