The U.S. Supreme Court case Wiborg v. United States in 1895 revolved around the issue of whether a crime committed on a foreign vessel, while it was within the territorial waters of another country, could be prosecuted under that country's laws. The defendant, Wiborg, had been convicted for aiding and abetting an illegal military expedition from Philadelphia to Cuba aboard a Norwegian ship. He appealed his conviction arguing that since the alleged crime took place on a foreign vessel (Norwegian), he should not be subject to U.S law even though they were still within US territorial waters at the time of commissioning. However, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that any act committed against public peace and order within its territory can be punished by such nation regardless if it occurred onboard domestic or foreign vessels unless there is explicit treaty stipulation otherwise between nations involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Wiborg v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's interpretation of jurisdiction was too broad and could potentially lead to abuses of power. He contended that a crime committed on a foreign vessel in international waters should not fall under U.S. jurisdiction simply because the ship later entered American territory. In his view, this would allow any nation to claim jurisdiction over any crime committed anywhere in the world as long as there was some subsequent connection with its territory or citizens - an idea he found untenable and contrary to principles of international law and sovereignty. Furthermore, he disagreed with applying domestic laws extraterritorially without clear legislative intent indicating such application.