The Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co. v. Norton case in 1931 revolved around the interpretation of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, specifically whether it applied to injuries sustained by workers while on navigable waters within a state’s territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff was an employee of the steamboat company who got injured while working on a vessel that was docked in Pennsylvania, which is not covered under federal maritime law but rather state laws. The Supreme Court ruled that despite being within a state's territory, such locations are still considered as navigable waters of the United States and thus fall under federal jurisdiction for purposes of this act. Therefore, employees injured at these sites can claim compensation under this federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Baltimore & Phila. Steamboat Co. et al v. Norton, Deputy Commissioner, et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a compensation award under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act was incorrect because it misinterpreted the intent of Congress in passing this legislation. He contended that Congress intended to provide compensation only for injuries occurring on navigable waters or piers adjacent thereto, not those happening entirely on land as in this case where an employee fell into a hatchway while working aboard a ship docked at port but still within territorial limits of state jurisdiction. The justice believed that such interpretation would extend federal authority beyond its constitutional bounds by encroaching upon states' rights to regulate local matters like workers’ compensation claims arising from accidents taking place within their territory.