In the case of Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser et al., 1988, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over jurisdiction and arbitration in an international context. The plaintiff, Lauro Lines S.R.L., an Italian cruise line company, had entered into a contract with American passengers which included a clause that any disputes would be settled through arbitration in Italy. When some passengers fell ill during their trip and sued for damages in Florida courts, Lauro moved to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens (the legal principle that allows courts to refuse jurisdiction when another court or location is much better suited to hear the case). However, both district and appellate courts denied this motion. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions by ruling that federal law required enforcement of contractual agreements for foreign arbitration unless they were "unreasonable" under maritime law or violated public policy - neither condition was met here according to them. Therefore, it held that American courts should have deferred litigation pending resolution of proceedings abroad as per agreement between parties involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser et al., Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow a forum-selection clause in an international cruise ticket contract was inconsistent with previous court decisions and federal law. He believed that such clauses were inherently unfair because they could potentially force plaintiffs to litigate their claims in distant or inconvenient forums, thereby discouraging them from pursuing valid claims and undermining their rights under U.S. law. Furthermore, he contended that allowing companies to dictate where lawsuits against them can be filed would give them too much power over consumers and other parties who may not have equal bargaining power or legal knowledge.