The United States brought a case against Thomas Fillebrown, Jr. for the alleged violation of an act of Congress that prohibited the sale and transportation of distilled spirits within certain states without paying taxes. The Supreme Court held that although there was no dispute as to whether or not Fillebrown had violated the law, he could not be convicted because it was impossible for him to comply with its requirements due to his lack of knowledge about them. The court reasoned that since ignorance is generally considered a valid excuse in criminal cases, it should also apply here; thus, they reversed the conviction and acquitted Fillebrown on all charges. This ruling established an important precedent by recognizing ignorance as a defense in criminal cases where compliance with laws may be difficult or impossible due to lack of information about them.

In the case of The United States v. Thomas Fillebrown, Jr., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a crime committed on board an American vessel in international waters. Justice McLean delivered the dissenting opinion, arguing that although Congress has exclusive authority to regulate maritime affairs and punish offenses committed at sea, it does not have exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on board vessels within its territorial limits. He argued that states should be allowed to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts in such cases because they are better suited for determining questions of local law and enforcing their own laws than federal courts are. Furthermore, he reasoned that allowing state courts to exercise concurrent jurisdiction would ensure uniformity among different jurisdictions and prevent forum shopping by litigants seeking favorable outcomes from particular judges or juries.