In the 1896 case of The Three Friends, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on an issue related to international law and neutrality. The case involved a steamboat named "The Three Friends," which was used by Cuban insurgents during their fight for independence from Spain in the late 19th century. The boat had been seized by U.S authorities under suspicion that it was being used to transport men and arms from Florida to Cuba, violating American neutrality laws. However, the court found that there wasn't enough evidence proving that these activities were taking place with intent to breach US neutrality policy towards Spain's sovereignty over Cuba at that time period. Therefore, they ordered for its release back into possession of its owners as no violation of any act of Congress had occurred according to them.

In the dissenting opinion for The Three Friends case, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a dangerous expansion of executive power. He contended that the President does not have unilateral authority to enforce neutrality laws and prevent private citizens from aiding foreign rebellions unless Congress has declared war or passed specific legislation authorizing such action. Harlan believed this interpretation violated constitutional separation of powers principles by allowing the executive branch to make decisions reserved for Congress. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power if presidents could decide when and how to apply neutrality laws based on their personal views or political considerations rather than clear legal standards set by lawmakers.