Because of the Supreme Court ruling, Hyatt was required to pay for all legal costs he incurred, without receiving a judgement against the FTB.

On this matter, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: "The consequences for the inventor are that he'll suffer the loss of two decades of litigation expenses and a final judgment against the Board for its egregious conduct.

... Those case-specific costs are not among the reliance interests that would persuade us to adhere to an incorrect resolution of an important constitutional question."

[4] Before the enactment of the Constitution, the Confederation government relied on the states' judiciaries for settling disputes and cases with interstate or international consequences.

Congress could only appoint courts dealing with piracy, felonies on international waters and appeals in cases of capture.

It also held that California was not required to apply the Nevada statute limiting damages in suits against its state, because California had a substantial interest in allowing persons injured while driving on their highways to receive full compensation when they sued the responsible person(s) in their courts.

Thus, applying the Nevada tort limit "would be obnoxious to its statutorily based policies of jurisdiction over nonresident motorists and full recovery.

"[12][13] In his dissenting opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun argued that interstate sovereign immunity was found "not in an express provision of the Constitution but in a guarantee that is implied as an essential component of federalism.

[23] Consequently, the Nevada Supreme Court deemed a new trial unnecessary, and simply reduced the damages granted to Hyatt to the permitted maximum.

Because an earlier ruling by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2014 had limited FTB's liability to fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress (two torts),[24] the maximum award was set at $100,000.

According to the petitioner, "'Hall's continuing viability is questionable' in light of more recent decisions of the Supreme Court, including Federal Maritime Commission, Alden, and Seminole Tribe.

[26] In his response, Hyatt argued that "Petitioner and its amici offer no such compelling justification for overruling Nevada v. Hall.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was absent from the bench as she was recovering from a lung surgery, but did participate in the trial by reading briefs as well as the transcript of the oral arguments.

The Constitution then created a "more perfect Union", according to Waxman, where states no longer had to rely on the "wild west of international law" for their sovereign immunity to be recognized in the courts of sister-states.

[29] Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned this idea by asking Waxman what text of the Constitution supported his analysis.

She was followed by Justice Samuel Alito, who repeated the question later on, saying—possibly sarcastically—"we are all always very vigilant not to read things into the Constitution that can't be found in the text".

Chemerinsky argued in response that the Framers were particularly concerned about abuse by the new federal government and that states did not want to relinquish its own power.

Instead, he argued, the Court could overturn past rulings if they are "egregiously wrong and the prior decision has severe practical consequences and there's no real reliance interest at stake".

[29][32] During oral arguments, counsel for both parties discussed the amicus curiae filed in favour of petitioner by Indiana, joined by 44 other states.

[n 5] Thomas concluded that it would make "little sense" if sovereign immunity was not extended to state courts,[18][35] and that "stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent".

[21] Thomas realized the results this ruling had on Hyatt, saying: "The consequences for the inventor are that he'll suffer the loss of two decades of litigation expenses and a final judgment against the Board for its egregious conduct. ...

Those case-specific costs are not among the reliance interests that would persuade us to adhere to an incorrect resolution of an important constitutional question.

"[36] Jay Michaelson criticized the opinion, saying "it's an imposition of Justice Thomas' specific, historically oriented 'originalism' philosophy.