In the case of United States v. Vickie S. Cabrales, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cabrales, overturning her conviction for money laundering charges due to jurisdictional issues. The court held that a person cannot be tried for money laundering in Missouri if all alleged financial transactions occurred in Florida. The government argued that since the laundered funds were derived from illegal drug sales in Missouri, it was appropriate to try her there even though she conducted no part of the crime within its borders. However, Justice Ginsburg delivered an opinion stating that venue is not proper when a defendant's actions contributing to a crime occur entirely outside of a state and have no effect within it.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Cabrales, Justice Kennedy argued that the majority's interpretation of jurisdiction was too narrow and did not fully consider the nature of money laundering as a crime. He contended that while some elements of a crime must occur within a state to establish jurisdiction, it is not necessary for all aspects to take place in one location. In this case, he believed Missouri had jurisdiction because Cabrales' actions were part of an ongoing criminal enterprise originating from there - even though her specific act (money laundering) occurred in Florida. This view suggests that crimes involving financial transactions should be treated differently due to their complex and often interstate nature.