In The United States, Plaintiffs in Error v. William L. Robeson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged violation of federal law by a non-resident defendant. At issue was whether the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania had authority to try and convict Robeson for violating the Revenue Act of 1828 when he resided outside its jurisdiction at all relevant times during his trial and conviction. The Supreme Court held that it did not have such power because Congress had not granted any authority to states or their courts with respect to violations of federal laws committed beyond their borders. This decision established that only Congress has the power to grant state courts jurisdiction over cases involving violations of federal law occurring outside their boundaries, thus limiting states' ability to enforce national legislation within their own jurisdictions without congressional authorization.

In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States, Plaintiffs in Error v. William L. Robeson, the dissenting opinion was that Congress had no authority to pass a law prohibiting citizens from trading with foreign nations without first obtaining a license from the President or Secretary of State. The majority opinion held that such laws were constitutional under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) and did not violate any other part of the Constitution. However, Justice McLean argued that this interpretation would give Congress too much power over commerce and trade between states and foreign countries, which he believed should be regulated by treaties rather than domestic legislation. He also argued that it violated principles of due process as well as freedom of contract since individuals could be punished for engaging in activities they had no knowledge were prohibited by law until after they engaged in them. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded that while Congress may have some limited powers related to regulating international trade through treaty-making authority granted by Article II Section 2 Clause 2 (the Treaty Power), it does not have unlimited power to regulate all aspects of interstate and foreign commerce through domestic legislation alone