The case of Ocampo v. United States in 1913 revolved around the issue of whether or not the U.S. government had jurisdiction over crimes committed in foreign territories that it occupied, specifically focusing on a murder charge in the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that even though the crime was committed before American occupation and control were fully established, since it occurred after Spain ceded sovereignty to America under Treaty of Paris (1898), US courts could exercise jurisdiction over such cases. This decision upheld Ocampo's conviction for murder by a court-martial convened by an American military governor during this transitional period.

In the dissenting opinion for OCAMPO v. UNITED STATES, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Ocampo's conviction under a Philippine law that criminalized membership in secret societies. He argued that this law was too broad and vague, potentially infringing on individuals' rights to freedom of association and speech. Furthermore, he contended that it was not clear whether Congress had intended for such laws to be applicable in territories like the Philippines when they were enacted. Therefore, he believed that Ocampo's conviction should have been overturned due to these concerns about potential constitutional violations.