In the case of Bas versus Tingy, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing law. The plaintiff argued that he had entered into a valid agreement with the defendant and should therefore be allowed to enforce it. However, the defendant argued that since their contract violated an existing law, it should not be enforced by any court. After considering both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Tingy and held that contracts which violate laws are void and unenforceable. This decision has become known as one of America's earliest precedents for enforcing public policy through judicial decisions.

In the case of Bas v. Tingy, Justice Chase delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted judgment to the defendant on grounds of sovereign immunity. He argued that this was an improper application of international law and would set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving foreign nations or their citizens. Furthermore, he noted that Congress had already passed legislation granting jurisdiction over such matters to federal courts and thus it was inappropriate for the court to grant immunity based solely on its own interpretation of international law. In conclusion, Justice Chase believed that allowing sovereign immunity in this case would be contrary to both congressional intent and established legal principles regarding foreign relations.