In the case of Berbecker v. Robertson in 1893, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute involving maritime law and personal injury liability. The plaintiff, Berbecker, was an employee of a dredging company who sustained injuries while working aboard a vessel owned by Robertson. He sought compensation for his injuries from both his employer and the ship owner under general maritime law. The main issue before the court was whether or not general maritime law provided for recovery against non-employer third parties (in this case, Robertson) for work-related injuries suffered by seamen like Berbecker. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no such provision under general maritime law which allows seamen to recover damages from non-employer third parties for work-related injuries. This ruling established an important precedent in American Maritime Law concerning liability issues related to workplace accidents at sea.

In the dissenting opinion for Berbecker v. Robertson, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law requiring all contracts involving immovable property within the state to be written in English violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices contended that this law unfairly discriminated against non-English speakers by denying them equal access to legal protections and opportunities afforded under contract law. They also believed that such a requirement did not serve any legitimate public interest or governmental purpose, thus making it an arbitrary exercise of state power. Furthermore, they maintained that forcing individuals who are unable or unwilling to write in English into using interpreters could potentially expose them to fraud or misrepresentation, thereby undermining their right to fair contractual dealings.