In the case of Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a seaman, who was injured while working on a ship docked in an American port but owned by a foreign company, could bring his lawsuit under American law or if it had to be filed under Spanish law (as he and the ship were both Spanish). The court ruled that since there were no significant ties between the incident and America other than its geographical location at time of injury, it would not be appropriate for U.S. courts to apply domestic laws to this case. Instead, they decided that such cases should fall within jurisdiction of international maritime law or potentially Spain's national laws due to nationality of involved parties and ownership status of vessel in question.

In the dissenting opinion for Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., Justice Tom C. Clark, joined by Justices Frankfurter and Harlan, argued that the majority's decision to allow a seaman to bring suit in federal court under general maritime law was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court and Congress' intent when it passed legislation governing such suits. He contended that allowing this would disrupt established legal principles regarding jurisdiction and forum selection in maritime cases, leading to confusion and uncertainty for both plaintiffs and defendants. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain provisions of federal statutes related to maritime law as granting broader rights than intended by Congress.