In Reed v. The Yaka et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case involving maritime law and personal injury claims. The plaintiff, Reed, was injured while working aboard a vessel owned by his employer, Sabine Towing Company. He filed suit under the Jones Act for negligence and unseaworthiness of the vessel but lost in district court due to lack of jurisdiction as it was determined that he wasn't a "seaman" under this act because he didn't contribute to function or mission of ship nor did he have connection with ship or fleet significant in terms of duration/nature. Reed appealed arguing that his duties were maritime in nature hence should be considered seaman regardless if they contributed directly to navigation/functioning/mission of ship/fleet which led him to win at appellate level where it reversed lower court's decision stating any worker who performs substantial amount work aboard ships is seaman. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling holding that definition for 'seamen' isn’t limited only those contributing directly towards functioning/navigation/mission rather includes all workers performing substantial part their work onboard vessels thus expanding scope protection offered by Jones Act.

In the dissenting opinion for Reed v. The Yaka et al., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring barbers to be licensed was an overreach of government regulation and violated individual rights. He contended that such laws were not necessary for public health or safety, but rather served as protectionist measures designed to limit competition in certain industries. Furthermore, he believed that these types of regulations disproportionately affected minority communities by creating barriers to entry into various professions. Therefore, he disagreed with the court's ruling on both constitutional and policy grounds.