In the case of Gordon et al. v. United States in 1952, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving fishing rights off the coast of Alaska. The appellants were Canadian fishermen who had been fined by U.S authorities for violating American laws that prohibited non-Americans from fishing within three miles of its coastline. They argued that they were not subject to these laws because their activities took place in waters historically used by Canadians and other foreign fishermen before Alaska became part of the U.S., thus making them international waters under common law principles. The court rejected this argument, ruling that when Alaska was purchased from Russia in 1867, it came with exclusive dominion over adjacent fisheries as well - regardless if those areas had previously been fished by foreigners or not. Therefore, upon acquisition, all such territories automatically fell under American jurisdiction and any previous international usage did not create an exception to this rule. This decision affirmed America's right to enforce its national laws within its territorial boundaries and set a precedent for future cases involving maritime disputes.

In the dissenting opinion for Gordon et al. v. United States, Justice Jackson disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed an individual who had been subpoenaed by a grand jury to be held in contempt of court for refusing to answer questions on grounds of self-incrimination. He argued that this violated the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and was contrary to established legal precedent which protected individuals from being forced into making incriminating statements about themselves during judicial proceedings. Furthermore, he contended that allowing such practices could lead to abuses of power by prosecutors and law enforcement officials who might use subpoenas as tools for harassment or intimidation rather than legitimate investigative purposes. In his view, it was essential for courts not only protect individual rights but also maintain public confidence in their fairness and integrity by ensuring they were not used as instruments of oppression.