The U.S. Supreme Court case Alaska Packers Association v. Pillsbury, Deputy Commissioner et al., 1936, involved a dispute over workers' compensation claims filed by employees of the Alaska Packers Association who were injured while working in Alaska but lived in California. The company argued that it should not be liable for these claims because they fell under Alaskan jurisdiction and did not apply to them as a California-based corporation. However, the court ruled against this argument stating that since the injuries occurred during employment with a company based in California, regardless of where the work took place or where the employee resided after injury, it was subject to federal law which required employers to compensate their employees for any work-related injuries sustained on job sites outside state boundaries.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Alaska Packers Association v. Pillsbury, Deputy Commissioner et al., 1936 argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with the intent and language of Congress when it enacted legislation to provide compensation for employees injured on navigable waters. The dissent contended that a broad interpretation should be applied to ensure workers' protection, regardless of whether they were technically "seamen" or not. They believed that this would align more closely with Congress's intention behind passing such laws - which was to protect all maritime workers from hazards associated with their employment at sea. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view about jurisdictional issues between state and federal law; arguing instead for a harmonious application where both could apply concurrently without conflict.