In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States vs. Andrew Burgevin, the court was asked to determine whether a state law could be applied in a federal court. At issue was an 1833 Georgia statute that allowed for debtors to pay their creditors with property instead of money if they were unable to make payment otherwise. The U.S., as plaintiff, argued that this statute violated Article I Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibits states from passing any laws impairing contracts between citizens and foreign nations or other states without congressional approval. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that while Congress had not specifically authorized such statutes by name, it had done so implicitly through its power over bankruptcy proceedings and thus found in favor of Burgevin and against the U.S.. This ruling established precedent whereby state laws can be applied in federal courts when there is no conflict with existing federal legislation or constitutional provisions

In the case of The United States v. Andrew Burgevin, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction over a criminal prosecution for an offense committed on board a vessel in navigable waters within its boundaries. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and reversed the judgment of conviction against Burgevin. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision and argued that states should be allowed to exercise their police power over vessels navigating within their territorial limits as long as they do not interfere with federal laws or regulations concerning navigation or commerce. He further noted that Congress has never passed any law expressly prohibiting states from exercising such authority and thus he believed it would be wrong to deny them this right without clear congressional intent to do so.