In the case of United States v. Powers et al., 1938, the Supreme Court examined whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an alleged violation of the National Prohibition Act that occurred on Lake Erie, which is bordered by several states and Canada. The defendants were caught transporting liquor from Canada to Ohio via boat and argued that since they were apprehended more than one marine league (approximately three miles) from shore, they were in international waters where U.S. law did not apply. However, it was determined that under international law at the time, countries could exercise control up to one hour's sailing distance from their coastlines for purposes related to revenue laws or other fiscal regulations - a distance greater than three miles given modern vessels' speeds. Therefore, despite being beyond one marine league offshore when intercepted by authorities enforcing prohibition laws - essentially fiscal regulations - defendants fell within U.S.'s jurisdictional reach as per prevailing norms then.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Powers et al., Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision was a dangerous expansion of federal power, which could lead to an overreach into areas traditionally governed by state law. He contended that the case did not involve interstate commerce and therefore should not fall under federal jurisdiction. The defendants were local residents who had conspired to rob a fellow resident; thus, he believed this crime should be handled by state courts as it has always been done in similar cases before. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential implications of allowing such broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, warning it might open up possibilities for further intrusion on states' rights and individual liberties in future cases.