In the case of Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, the Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that U.S.-based insurance companies could be held liable under American antitrust laws for their conduct abroad if it resulted in substantial effects within the United States. The court also decided that comity (respect between courts of different jurisdictions) did not prevent application of U.S. law to foreign entities involved in this case, even though they were simultaneously subject to regulation by a foreign government (in this instance, Britain). The decision was significant because it expanded the reach of American antitrust legislation beyond its borders and clarified how such laws apply to international business activities.

In the dissenting opinion for Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, Justice Scalia argued that U.S. courts should not have jurisdiction over foreign conduct unless it was meant to and did in fact harm U.S domestic commerce significantly. He disagreed with the majority's view that a violation of U.S antitrust laws by foreign companies could be actionable even if it didn't intend to affect American commerce or cause substantial effect on it. According to him, this interpretation would lead to an unwarranted extension of American law enforcement into other countries' jurisdictions, potentially causing international discord and conflict with principles of comity among nations.