In the United States v. Greathouse case of 1896, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving maritime law and piracy. The defendants, including Captain Greathouse, were charged with mutiny and murder aboard an American vessel in international waters off Japan's coast. They argued that U.S courts lacked jurisdiction because the alleged crimes occurred outside America's territorial boundaries. However, the court rejected this argument based on two primary reasons: first was "the protective principle" which allows nations to prosecute actions threatening their security or governmental functions even if committed outside their territory; second was "the universality principle," asserting all nations can exercise jurisdiction over certain offenses recognized by communities of states as being of universal concern (like piracy). Thus, it held that U.S laws against mutiny and murder applied to American vessels in international waters.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Greathouse case argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too broad and could potentially lead to unjust outcomes. The dissenting justices believed that, while it is important to punish those who commit crimes against U.S citizens abroad, it should not be done at the expense of due process rights or by stretching legal definitions beyond their intended scope. They contended that a more narrow reading of "piracy" would better align with international norms and historical precedent, thereby ensuring fairer treatment for defendants like Greathouse. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential misuse or overreach if such expansive interpretations were allowed to stand unchallenged.