In the case of Moore v. Ruckgaber in 1901, the US Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and salvage rights. The plaintiff, Captain Moore, had rescued a ship owned by defendant Ruckgaber that was stranded near Sandy Hook, New Jersey. Afterward, he claimed salvage rights to the vessel and its cargo under maritime law which allows those who save a ship at sea to claim compensation from the owner. However, Ruckgaber refused to pay him for his services arguing that since they were within three miles of shore when saved - an area considered as territorial waters - federal laws did not apply but state laws did where no such provision existed for salvaging ships. The court sided with Captain Moore stating that while it's true territorial waters are generally subject to state jurisdiction; this does not hold in cases involving navigation or commerce due to their national importance which falls under federal purview per Constitution's Commerce Clause (Article I Section 8). Therefore even though they were within three miles off coast when rescued; because it involved navigation –a matter of interstate commerce– federal maritime law applied granting him salvage rights over said vessel.

In the dissenting opinion for Moore v. Ruckgaber, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law prohibiting non-residents from serving as executors of estates went against established principles of interstate comity and violated citizens' constitutional rights under Article IV. The dissent contended that this ruling essentially allowed states to discriminate against out-of-state residents in matters related to estate administration, which could lead to retaliatory legislation by other states and disrupt harmony among them. Furthermore, they believed that such discrimination was inconsistent with the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution which guarantees certain fundamental rights for all U.S citizens regardless of their state residency status. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on testamentary freedom since individuals might be deterred from appointing trusted out-of-state friends or relatives as executors due to legal barriers imposed by such laws.