In the case of Foley Bros., Inc. et al. v. Filardo, 1948, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether an American law regarding overtime pay applied to work performed in a foreign country by an American citizen employed by an American company under contract with the United States government. The plaintiff, Mr. Filardo, worked for Foley Brothers in Iran and sought compensation for overtime hours as per the Eight Hour Law of 1912 which stipulated that workers were entitled to additional wages if they worked more than eight hours a day on public works projects funded by federal money. The court ruled against Mr.Filardo stating that unless Congress explicitly states otherwise, laws are presumed not to have extraterritorial application - meaning they do not apply outside of US borders even when dealing with US citizens or companies abroad. This decision established precedent concerning how courts interpret congressional intent regarding international applicability of domestic laws; it is now generally assumed such laws only apply within national boundaries unless specifically stated otherwise in legislation itself.

In the dissenting opinion for Foley Bros., Inc. et al. v. Filardo, Justice Robert H. Jackson disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Eight Hour Law as applying to American contractors working overseas on behalf of the U.S government. He argued that Congress did not intend for this law to have extraterritorial application when it was enacted in 1892 and there is no evidence suggesting a change in this intent over time or due to changing circumstances globally during World War II when these contracts were made between private companies and federal agencies like Department of State or War Assets Administration for work abroad such as construction projects in Iran where Mr.Filardo worked overtime without extra pay which led him filing suit against his employer Foley Brothers Inc.. According to Justice Jackson, if Congress wanted its labor laws applied outside United States territory then they should explicitly state so rather than courts assuming their intention based on ambiguous language used within statutes themselves which could lead unintended consequences affecting foreign relations potentially violating international law principles respecting sovereignty other nations whose own labor regulations might differ significantly from ours leading potential conflicts legal systems around world thus undermining principle comity among nations fundamental underpinning modern international system itself.