The U.S. Supreme Court case Wilson v. Shaw, Secretary of the Treasury in 1906 revolved around the constitutionality of federal government's involvement in international affairs and its power to incur debt for public works projects outside US territory. The plaintiff, George Wilson, challenged the legality of a law that authorized borrowing money to construct the Panama Canal on grounds that it exceeded Congress' powers under Article I Section 8 Clause 2 (the Borrowing Clause) and Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 (the Property Clause) of Constitution. However, Justice Edward Douglass White ruled against him stating that these clauses did not limit Congress’ ability to borrow money or acquire property only within domestic borders but also extended internationally if it served national interests such as defense or commerce regulation. Therefore, constructing an interoceanic canal was deemed constitutional because it facilitated trade and military operations which were vital aspects of national welfare.

In the dissenting opinion for Wilson v. Shaw, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow federal funding of a canal in Panama was an overreach of Congressional power. He contended that while Congress has authority to regulate commerce and provide for national defense, it does not have unlimited power to spend public money on any project it deems beneficial. Harlan believed this ruling would open the door for Congress to fund projects outside its constitutional purview under the guise of benefiting commerce or defense. Furthermore, he expressed concern about U.S involvement in foreign affairs without explicit constitutional authorization, arguing that such actions could lead America into international conflicts and obligations beyond what framers intended.