In the case of Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 1987, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether federal courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants based on a federal statute that did not explicitly provide for such jurisdiction. The dispute arose from losses suffered by Omni Capital during a sharp rise in silver prices; they sued several parties including Rudolf Wolff & Co., alleging manipulation of silver futures contracts and violation of Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). Lower courts dismissed the suit against Wolff due to lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions, ruling that unless Congress clearly provides for extraterritorial service of process in the law under which plaintiffs bring their claim—in this case CEA—federal courts cannot assert personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants who lack sufficient contacts with United States. The court noted it is up to Congress to decide whether and when American laws should apply outside U.S borders.

In the dissenting opinion for Omni Capital International, LTD., et al. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., et al., Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow federal courts to create new causes of action was a violation of separation of powers principles. He contended that it is Congress' role, not the judiciary's, to make laws and establish legal remedies. The justice also criticized the majority for relying on outdated precedents from an era when judicial lawmaking was more accepted than it is today. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of Rule 4(k)(2) as providing a basis for personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants in certain circumstances without explicit congressional authorization.