In the United States v. Johnson case of 1910, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning maritime law and insurance claims. The defendant, Johnson, had insured his ship with an American company but later sought to recover damages from a collision that occurred while he was sailing under a foreign flag (Norwegian). The plaintiff, the U.S., argued that since Johnson was operating under Norwegian jurisdiction at the time of the accident, he should seek compensation through their legal system instead. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for majority opinion held that even though Johnson's vessel sailed under a foreign flag during its voyage when it collided with another vessel in international waters; this did not exempt him from making an insurance claim in America where his policy was issued and paid for. Therefore, they concluded that federal courts have jurisdiction over such cases regardless of whether or not vessels involved were flying U.S flags at times of accidents.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Johnson, 1910, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of the Pure Food and Drug Act was too narrow. He believed that Congress intended to protect consumers from all forms of misbranding, including false therapeutic claims on drug labels. The majority held that a product label claiming to cure diseases did not constitute misbranding under the law unless it also contained incorrect or misleading information about its ingredients. However, Justice Harlan disagreed with this view because he thought it failed to consider how such claims could deceive customers into buying ineffective treatments for serious illnesses. He contended that if a manufacturer falsely represented their product as an effective treatment for certain conditions when it wasn't scientifically proven so would be just as harmful and deceptive as lying about what substances were in it.