In the case of Cook v. United States in 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and salvage rights. The plaintiff, Cook, had discovered an abandoned ship at sea and claimed it under international salvage laws which state that a person who recovers another's ship or cargo after peril or loss at sea is entitled to a reward commensurate with the value of what was saved. However, upon bringing the vessel back to port in California, he found out that it was owned by the U.S government which refused his claim for compensation arguing sovereign immunity - i.e., as per domestic law principles stating that you cannot sue the government unless it agrees to be sued. The court sided with Cook ruling that while generally true domestically, this principle did not extend into international waters where maritime law applied instead of national laws; thus making him eligible for compensation from salvaging property belonging to any entity including governments.

In the dissenting opinion for Cook v. United States, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that Congress did not intend to prohibit all forms of gambling on American vessels but rather only those games which could be considered a "lottery." Furthermore, he believed that poker should not fall under this category as it is a game of skill rather than chance. Therefore, in his view, Mr. Cook should not have been convicted for running a poker game aboard his vessel while it was anchored in international waters. Additionally, Justice Bradley expressed concerns about jurisdictional issues related to enforcing U.S laws outside territorial boundaries without explicit congressional authorization.