In the U.S. Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Arguelles case of 1970, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and workers' compensation rights for seamen injured while working aboard ships in navigable waters. The plaintiff, Arguelles, was an employee of U.S. Bulk Carriers who got injured during his employment but did not receive full wages during his period of recovery as required by maritime law (Maintenance and Cure). Instead, he received benefits under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), which were less than what he would have received under Maintenance and Cure. Arguelles sued for additional compensation to make up this difference but was denied by lower courts due to a clause in LHWCA that precluded any other federal remedy once its benefits had been accepted. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions stating that accepting payments under LHWCA does not bar seamen from seeking further damages through other federal remedies like Maintenance and Cure if they are inadequate or insufficiently compensatory.

In the dissenting opinion for U.S. Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Arguelles (1970), Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow a seaman to sue his employer under state law was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings and federal maritime law principles. He contended that Congress had already provided an extensive regulatory scheme for seamen's rights and remedies in cases of personal injury through the Jones Act, which should preclude any additional recovery under state laws. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on uniformity in maritime law due to variations among different states' laws and judicial interpretations thereof.