In the case of Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of NML Capital, a hedge fund that owned Argentine bonds. The dispute arose when Argentina defaulted on its sovereign debt and subsequently refused to pay certain bondholders, including NML Capital. In response, NML sought information about Argentina's non-U.S assets to execute its judgments worth around $2 billion against them. However, Argentina argued that discovery was barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating FSIA does not immunize all foreign-sovereign property from attachment or execution; it only specifies particular categories which are immune from execution. Therefore, they held there is no provision forbidding or limiting discovery in aid of execution upon a foreign state’s extraterritorial assets.

In the dissenting opinion for Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). She argued that FSIA should not be used to support extensive discovery into a foreign state’s assets abroad because it contradicts international norms and could potentially harm U.S. relations with other countries. Furthermore, she expressed concern about reciprocity; if U.S courts can order such broad-reaching discovery against foreign states, then foreign courts might do the same to the United States in return. This would put at risk sensitive information about U.S national security or economic interests held overseas.