In the 1957 case Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A., v. Rogers, Attorney General, Successor to The Alien Property Custodian et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a Swiss corporation's failure to produce certain documents in response to an order by a district court did not constitute contempt if it was unable to comply due to foreign law restrictions. The company had been ordered by a lower court judge during discovery proceedings of its suit against the United States for return of vested property seized during World War II under Trading with Enemy Act (TWEA). However, Swiss penal code prohibited such document production without government approval which hadn't been granted yet at that time. Therefore, while non-compliance could result in dismissal of claims or defenses related directly and specifically tied up with those unproduced documents as per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37(b)(2)(iii), it couldn't be used as grounds for complete dismissal of action itself since inability wasn't willful disobedience but rather forced compliance with another jurisdiction's laws.

In the dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan, he argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of equity. He believed that Societe Internationale should not have been penalized for its inability to produce records demanded by the court due to Swiss law prohibiting their release. The company had made every effort possible to comply with court orders and it was unfair to dismiss their claim because they were unable to break another country’s laws. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on how much discretion trial courts should have in these situations; instead advocating for a more flexible approach based on individual circumstances rather than rigid rules. In his view, this would better serve justice and fairness.