In the 1893 Supreme Court case, Famous Smith v. United States, Smith was convicted for murder on a U.S. naval vessel in Japanese waters and sentenced to death by hanging. The defense argued that the U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction because the crime occurred outside of American territory; however, under international law principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction, crimes committed aboard a nation's ship are considered within its legal domain regardless of location. The court upheld this principle and ruled against Smith stating that "for purposes of criminal jurisdiction there is no distinction between land and sea." They further clarified that ships sailing foreign seas under the American flag remain within America’s territorial dominion for judicial purposes. This ruling solidified an important aspect of maritime law: vessels operating under a country's flag are subject to its laws even when they're in international or foreign waters.

The dissenting opinion in the Famous Smith v. United States case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of international law and treaty obligations. The dissenting justices believed that, under international law, a nation has jurisdiction over its own citizens even when they are abroad. Therefore, they argued that the U.S government had every right to prosecute Mr. Smith for his actions overseas as he remained a U.S citizen at all times during his alleged criminal activities. They also pointed out that there were no specific provisions in any treaties between the US and other nations which would prevent such prosecution from taking place.