In the case of Nelson v. United States in 1905, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning maritime law and insurance claims. The petitioner, Mr. Nelson, was an owner of a ship that had been damaged during its voyage due to perils at sea. He filed an insurance claim for damages but it was denied by his insurer who argued that he had not properly maintained his vessel which led to its damage - thus breaching their contract's warranty clause requiring him to keep the ship seaworthy. The court held in favor of Mr. Nelson stating that under maritime law, there is no absolute obligation for a shipowner to ensure their vessel remains seaworthy throughout its entire journey; rather they are only required to make sure it is fit when commencing each leg of the trip or upon leaving port after repairs have been made if needed. This ruling clarified how warranties regarding seaworthiness should be interpreted within marine insurance contracts and set precedent for future cases involving similar issues.

In the dissenting opinion for Nelson v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a violation of constitutional rights and principles. He contended that it was not within Congress' power to delegate its legislative authority to an executive department or officer, as this would undermine the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. Furthermore, he believed that allowing such delegation could potentially lead to arbitrary and oppressive legislation by individuals who were not elected representatives of the people. In his view, only Congress had been granted with legislative powers under Article I Section 1 of Constitution; therefore any attempt at delegating these responsibilities should be deemed unconstitutional.