In the case of Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that foreign states are immune from jurisdiction in American courts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 for all claims involving public acts, regardless of whether they were committed within or outside US territory. The case arose when an oil tanker owned by Amerada Hess was struck by a missile during the Falklands War between Argentina and Britain; it sued Argentina in federal court seeking damages for loss of vessel and cargo. However, FSIA provides exceptions to immunity only if property rights are at stake within US or money is taken out unlawfully from America which wasn't applicable here hence, court dismissed their claim stating that FSIA doesn't allow suits against foreign governments based on military actions occurring outside U.S.

In the dissenting opinion for Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 should not be interpreted to cover all cases involving foreign states regardless of when they occurred. They believed that FSIA was not meant to apply retroactively and thus should not govern a case arising from events in 1976 before its enactment. The dissent also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of international law principles regarding immunity, arguing instead that customary international law allows for exceptions to sovereign immunity in certain circumstances such as commercial activities or acts causing injury within another state's territory. Therefore, they would have allowed Amerada Hess' lawsuit against Argentina for damages caused during a military conflict outside U.S waters to proceed under these exceptions rather than dismissing it based on FSIA provisions.