In the case of Sherman v. United States in 1899, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning extradition laws and their application to crimes committed outside U.S. territory. The appellant, George H. Sherman, was charged with embezzlement while serving as an officer aboard a ship sailing from San Francisco to Yokohama, Japan - both places where he could be legally tried for his crime under existing law at that time. Sherman argued that since the alleged crime took place on international waters (i.e., not within any specific country's jurisdiction), it should not fall under U.S.'s extradition treaty with Japan which only covered offenses committed "within the jurisdiction" of either nation. The court disagreed with this argument and upheld his extradition order by ruling that such treaties were meant to cover all crimes recognized by both nations regardless of where they occurred if one party had legal authority over the offender at some point during or after committing said offense. This decision thus clarified how broadly terms like "jurisdiction" can be interpreted in international law when dealing with transnational criminal activities; specifically those involving maritime travel or other situations where national borders may not always clearly define who has authority over what actions.

In the dissenting opinion for Sherman v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on an entrapment defense was fundamentally flawed. He contended that it is not within the purview of law enforcement officials to instigate crime by persuading innocent parties into committing illegal acts and then punishing them for their actions. In his view, this practice contradicts principles of justice and fair play inherent in American jurisprudence. Furthermore, he asserted that such tactics could potentially lead to abuses of power by law enforcement agencies who might use entrapment as a means to target individuals they deem undesirable or dangerous without sufficient evidence of criminal behavior. Therefore, he believed that any evidence obtained through such methods should be deemed inadmissible in court proceedings due to its inherently coercive nature.