In the case of Windward Shipping (London) Ltd. et al. v. American Radio Association, AFL-CIO, et al., 1973, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Windward Shipping and other foreign ship owners who were sued by an American labor union for not employing licensed radio officers on their vessels while operating in international waters but within range of US ports. The court held that applying U.S law to regulate employment practices aboard these foreign ships would be an extraterritorial application of domestic law which is generally not favored unless Congress explicitly states so or there's a clear implication otherwise. In this context, it was found that neither condition existed as per the Communications Act under consideration; hence its provisions could not be applied to compel foreign shipowners to employ specific personnel when they are outside territorial waters even if they're communicating with US shore stations.

In the dissenting opinion for Windward Shipping (London) Ltd. v. American Radio Association, AFL-CIO, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of maritime law and labor relations policy. He contended that seamen should be able to strike without fear of being held liable for damages under tort law because they are not in a position to negotiate their working conditions or wages with shipowners directly due to international laws and practices governing shipping operations. Furthermore, he believed that allowing such strikes would promote collective bargaining by giving workers more leverage in negotiations with employers. Finally, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal statutes regulating labor disputes involving foreign vessels as barring all forms of picketing or striking by American seamen against these ships.