In the United States vs. Grimes, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an offense committed on board of a vessel in navigable waters within its territorial limits. The defendant, Grimes, was charged with assault and battery upon another person aboard his vessel while it was moored in navigable waters within the State of Maryland. The Supreme Court held that under admiralty law, offenses committed on vessels are subject to federal jurisdiction rather than state courts unless Congress has expressly provided otherwise or there is no applicable federal statute governing such matters. Therefore, since there were no applicable federal statutes concerning this matter at hand and Congress had not expressed any intention as to which court should have jurisdiction over such cases involving vessels in navigable waters within states' boundaries; the Supreme Court concluded that it fell under exclusive admiralty law and thus could only be tried by a district court of competent maritime jurisdiction.

In United States v. Grimes, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that authorized the President of the United States to suspend habeas corpus in certain areas during times of rebellion or invasion applied to an individual who had been arrested and detained by military authorities without being charged with any crime. The majority opinion held that it did not apply because there was no evidence that Congress intended for it to be used as a basis for arresting individuals without charge. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had clearly expressed its intent when passing the law and thus should have been given effect in this case. He argued further that even if Congress had not explicitly stated its intention, then courts should interpret statutes liberally so as to uphold their constitutionality whenever possible. Furthermore, he noted that suspending habeas corpus is necessary at times of war or insurrection in order to protect public safety and maintain order; therefore, allowing such suspensions would serve both constitutional principles and practical considerations alike.