The U.S. Supreme Court case Maryland v. Soper, Judge in 1925 involved the state of Maryland attempting to prosecute federal prohibition agents for murder after they killed a man while enforcing national prohibition laws. The defendants removed their case from the state court to the federal court under a statute that allowed such removal when a defendant was acting under color of his office or orders and claimed immunity from prosecution by reason of his official position or duty. The State appealed against this removal, arguing that it had not been made clear whether these officers were performing their duties at the time of killing. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants (federal agents), stating that if an officer is charged with crime committed while he claims to be doing official acts within his authority, he can remove his trial into Federal courts where he will have protection against local prejudice and jealousy. It also stated that it's up to jury on deciding whether those acts were done under color of office or not.

In the dissenting opinion for Maryland v. Soper, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to allow federal officers immunity from state prosecution when performing their duties. He argued that this ruling would give too much power to federal authorities and could potentially lead to abuses of power. According to him, states should have jurisdiction over crimes committed within their borders unless explicitly stated otherwise by Congress or the Constitution itself. He also expressed concern about potential conflicts between state and federal law enforcement agencies if such a precedent was set.