The U.S. Supreme Court is responsible for interpretation of the highest law in the United States, the federal Constitution. Throughout more than 200 years of its history, the Court has decided numerous cases shaping, reshaping and modifying many different clauses and provisions of the document. Among various methods of constitutional interpretation, most oft en the Justices have referred to the original intent of the Framers (historical interpretation), plain meaning of the document (textual interpretation), character of the analyzed institutions (structural interpretation), theoretical aspects of the issue (doctrinal interpretation) or they have imposed a balancing test of arguments which led to a so-called reasonable interpretation. In this process the Court has rarely referred to arguments stemming from the international community, and has hardly ever used them as a justification of particular decisions. Such a reluctant attitude towards arguments offered by the international community may prove the lack of legal necessity of the use of such arguments. However, there are a few examples of the Court's adjudication in which a reference to the international community became a significant part of the majority opinion, which may lead to the assumption that the Justices tend to use such arguments in the case of a highly political issue (Brown v. Board of Education) or in order to justify a major change in legal issues (death penalty cases). The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the most crucial opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Justices decided to settle the disputes in relation with arguments posed by the international community.