In the United States v. Hall and Worth, two men were charged with piracy for attacking a Spanish vessel in 1809. The defendants argued that they had been granted letters of marque by the government of France to attack Spanish vessels during their war with Spain, which began in 1808. However, since the US was not at war with either country at this time, it was determined that such an act constituted piracy under international law and thus violated US laws as well. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Hall and Worth on all counts due to lack of evidence proving their claim that they had been authorized by France to commit acts of violence against Spanish ships; therefore, they could be held liable for any damages caused by their actions.

In the United States v. Hall and Worth, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to pass laws concerning crimes committed on the high seas. He reasoned that such acts were not within the scope of federal power as outlined by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress was allowed to pass laws regarding these matters then it would be encroaching upon state sovereignty and infringing upon their rights under the Tenth Amendment. Additionally, Marshall noted that there was no precedent for this type of legislation and thus it should not be allowed without explicit authorization from either an act or amendment passed by Congress itself or through a treaty with another nation. In conclusion, Marshall believed that allowing this law to stand would set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar issues and could lead to further erosion of states' rights under the Constitution.