In the 1951 case of Far East Conference et al. v. United States et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States, upholding that shipping companies operating under a foreign flag but engaged in commerce within American waters are subject to regulation by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). The Far East Conference, an association of transpacific steamship operators, had sought to establish uniform rates and practices among its members. However, this was challenged as being anti-competitive under U.S antitrust laws. The court held that such agreements were not exempt from FMC oversight simply because they involved foreign-flag vessels or occurred partially outside US jurisdiction. This decision reinforced federal authority over maritime commerce and affirmed that international businesses must comply with domestic regulations when operating within a country's territorial boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for FAR EAST CONFERENCE ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against an international shipping cartel violated principles of international law and comity. The dissenters contended that, as a matter of policy, U.S antitrust laws should not be applied extraterritorially to foreign conduct unless such conduct has direct, substantial and foreseeable effects in the United States. They also expressed concern about potential retaliation from other countries if U.S courts were seen as interfering with their sovereignty by regulating activities occurring within their borders. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain provisions in federal maritime law which they believed did not intend to cover agreements among ocean carriers regarding rates on purely overseas trade routes.