In the case of Alicia G. Limtiaco, Attorney General of Guam v. Felix P. Camacho, Governor of Guam (2006), the dispute centered around who had the authority to represent Guam in legal matters - specifically whether or not it was within the governor's power to hire an attorney without consulting with and receiving approval from the attorney general first. The Supreme Court ruled that under Organic Act Section 1424-2(a) which states "the Attorney General shall be responsible for representing 'Guam' in all litigation," only gave exclusive representation rights to cases where “Guam” is a named party and does not extend this exclusivity when other agencies or instrumentalities are parties instead. Therefore, they concluded that Governor Camacho did have authority to retain separate counsel for such instances.

In the dissenting opinion for Limtiaco v. Camacho, Justice Thomas argued that the majority's interpretation of "full faith and credit" was incorrect. He contended that this clause should not be used to force a state or territory to adhere to another jurisdiction's laws if they conflict with its own constitution or statutes. In his view, Guam’s Organic Act does not require it to follow California law in determining what constitutes an “obligation” under its debt limit provision; rather, it allows Guam to interpret and apply this term according to its own legal principles and traditions. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's decision which effectively forced Guam into adopting California’s definition of “obligations,” arguing that such imposition undermines local autonomy over fiscal affairs granted by Congress through the Organic Act.