In the case of Thompson v. Lawson, Deputy Commissioner of the United States Bureau of Employees Compensation et al., 1953, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a widow could receive death benefits under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act for her husband who died while working on a dredge in navigable waters. The lower courts had denied her claim because they found that his work did not have a direct connection with navigation or commerce. However, upon review by the Supreme Court it was determined that such an interpretation was too narrow and inconsistent with previous rulings which held that any worker injured or killed while performing duties on navigable waters is covered by this act regardless if their work directly affects navigation or commerce. Therefore, Mrs.Thompson’s claim for compensation should be granted as per Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

In the dissenting opinion for Thompson v. Lawson, Justice Jackson argued that the majority's decision to award compensation to a ship repairman injured while traveling from his home to a vessel was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. He contended that such an interpretation expanded the scope of employment beyond traditional boundaries, setting a dangerous precedent for future cases. According to Justice Jackson, injuries sustained during travel should not be considered as occurring 'in the course of employment,' unless they happen on premises owned or controlled by an employer or in performing tasks directed by them. The justice also expressed concern about potential misuse of this broadened definition by employees seeking unjustified benefits.