In the 1967 case, Federal Maritime Commission v. Aktiebolaget Svenska Amerika Linien (Swedish American Line), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that foreign shipping companies operating in U.S waters are subject to regulations set by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). The Swedish American Line had argued they were exempt from such regulation due to a clause in their contract stating disputes would be settled according to Swedish law. However, the court held that this did not preclude them from adhering to FMC rules while operating within U.S jurisdiction. This decision reinforced federal authority over international commerce and upheld Congress's power under Article I of the Constitution, which grants it regulatory control over foreign trade.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Maritime Commission v. Aktiebolaget Svenska Amerika Linien, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a ruling by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant statutory provisions. He contended that Congress did not intend for these laws to give FMC such broad authority over foreign shipping practices, particularly in cases where there is no clear harm or detriment to American commerce or interests. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on vague and ambiguous legislative history instead of focusing on explicit statutory language and intent. In his view, this approach could potentially lead to arbitrary rulings and regulatory overreach by federal agencies like FMC.