In the case of Union Oil Co. of California v. The San Jacinto et al., 1972, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a ship owner could limit its liability for oil pollution damage caused by its vessel under federal maritime law or if it was subject to unlimited liability under state law. The dispute arose after an oil tanker owned by Union Oil Company collided with another vessel in the San Francisco Bay, causing significant environmental damage due to an oil spill. While Union Oil sought to limit their financial responsibility based on federal maritime laws that cap damages at the value of a ship and freight following an accident, California argued that they should be held fully accountable for all cleanup costs and damages without limitation according to state legislation enacted in response to major oil spills off its coastlines. In this landmark decision, the court ruled against Union Oil Company stating that while federal law does provide some limits on liability for shipping accidents generally, it did not specifically address pollution incidents thus allowing states like California greater latitude in enforcing their own stricter standards.

In the dissenting opinion for Union Oil Co. of California v. The San Jacinto et al., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of maritime law and an unwarranted intrusion into state sovereignty. He contended that under traditional admiralty jurisdiction, claims arising out of oil spills were not exclusively federal matters but could be pursued in state courts as well. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that uniformity in maritime law required preemption of state laws governing oil spill liability and damages. Instead, he asserted that states should have the power to enact their own regulations to protect their coastlines from pollution damage without interference from federal authorities or courts.