In the United States v. Laughlin case of 1918, the Supreme Court ruled on matters concerning federal jurisdiction over crimes committed in unincorporated territories. The defendant, Laughlin, was charged with manslaughter in Panama Canal Zone and convicted by a lower court. He appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that since Panama Canal Zone was not incorporated into U.S territory at the time of his crime, he could not be prosecuted under U.S law. However, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that Congress had authority to enforce laws within all areas under its control whether they were incorporated or not. This ruling affirmed federal jurisdiction over criminal activities occurring in unincorporated territories controlled by United States.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Laughlin, it was argued that the defendant's conviction should be overturned because he had not been given a fair trial. The justice believed that there were serious issues with how evidence was collected and presented in this case, which violated Laughlin's rights to due process under the Constitution. They also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of what constituted an "unlawful act" under federal law, arguing that their overly broad definition could potentially criminalize innocent behavior. Furthermore, they felt that even if Laughlin did commit an unlawful act as defined by the majority, his actions did not meet all elements required for prosecution under federal law - specifically intent to defraud or deceive another person or entity.