In the case of Chick Kam Choo et al. v. Exxon Corp. et al., 1987, a group of plaintiffs sought damages from Exxon Corporation and other defendants for injuries sustained in an explosion at an oil refinery in Singapore where they were employed by a subsidiary company of Exxon's. The U.S District Court dismissed their claims on grounds that it was more appropriate to litigate them in Singapore due to forum non conveniens (a discretionary power allowing courts to dismiss cases better suited for another jurisdiction). On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed this decision but also imposed a condition preventing defendants from re-litigating certain issues if the case was pursued elsewhere - essentially imposing its own law onto foreign jurisdictions which is beyond its authority. The Supreme Court reversed this ruling stating that while federal courts have discretion under doctrine of forum non conveniens to decline jurisdiction over transnational disputes when alternative forums are available, they do not have authority to impose conditions on dismissal based on American law as it infringes upon sovereignty rights and principles of comity among nations.

In the dissenting opinion for Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case based on forum non conveniens was incorrect. He believed that federal courts should have jurisdiction over cases involving foreign law, as long as they involve U.S. citizens or corporations and do not interfere with foreign relations or violate international comity principles. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that a Texas court would be an inconvenient forum for this case, stating there were no significant practical problems preventing it from hearing the case. Lastly, he criticized their reliance on Gulf Oil Corp v Gilbert (1947) in dismissing this suit since it involved domestic rather than international issues.