The U.S. Supreme Court case Republic of Austria v. Altmann (2003) involved a dispute over six paintings by Gustav Klimt, which were seized by the Nazis during World War II from Maria Altmann's uncle, Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer. After discovering that the Austrian government had not returned them as required under its own laws post-war, Altmann sued for their return in an American court using the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Republic of Austria argued that FSIA should not apply retroactively to events occurring before 1976 when it was passed into law and thus they are immune from lawsuit. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Altmann stating that FSIA applies to all cases regardless of when underlying conduct occurred because it is procedural rather than substantive law; hence foreign nations could be held accountable in U.S courts for past actions.

In the dissenting opinion for Republic of Austria v. Altmann, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to apply the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) retroactively was incorrect. He contended that FSIA should not be applied to conduct occurring before its enactment in 1976 because it would disrupt settled expectations and violate principles of fairness. Furthermore, he believed that applying FSIA retrospectively could potentially harm U.S.'s foreign relations by subjecting other nations to unforeseen liability based on past actions. In his view, Congress did not clearly express an intent for FSIA to have such a broad reach when they passed it; therefore, courts should refrain from interpreting it in this manner unless explicitly directed by Congress.