The U.S. Supreme Court case Skiriotes v. Florida in 1940 revolved around the issue of whether a state could regulate its citizens' actions outside its territorial limits, specifically on the high seas. The plaintiff, Mr. Skiriotes, was charged with violating Florida's sponge fishing laws while operating his boat beyond the state's three-mile limit but within waters claimed by the United States under federal law (the Gulf of Mexico). He argued that only Congress had jurisdiction over these waters and thus he couldn't be prosecuted under state law for activities conducted there. However, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction and ruled that states can indeed exercise their authority beyond their physical boundaries if doing so protects or promotes interests within those boundaries - unless such action is preempted by federal law or conflicts with rights granted to other states. In this case, it found no conflict between Florida’s regulation of sponge fishing and any act of Congress; hence it held that Florida could enforce its laws on Floridian citizens even when they were out at sea.

In the dissenting opinion for Skiriotes v. Florida, Justice Hugo Black argued that the state of Florida did not have jurisdiction over federal waters and therefore could not enforce its sponge fishing laws beyond its territorial limits. He believed that only Congress had this power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. Furthermore, he contended that even if states were allowed to regulate activities in federal waters, they should be limited to protecting their own citizens or property rather than enforcing general regulations such as those related to sponge fishing methods. This view was based on his interpretation of previous court rulings which suggested a more restrictive role for states in regulating activities outside their borders.