In the 1943 case Boston Tow Boat Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government regarding a dispute over compensation for vessels requisitioned during World War II under The Merchant Marine Act (1936). The Boston Tow Boat Company argued that they were entitled to more than just bareboat charter hire rates as compensation for their commandeered tugboats and barges, citing that they should receive additional payment due to increased wartime demand and risks. However, the court held that fair compensation did not necessarily mean full market value at peak wartime prices but rather what was reasonable under normal conditions considering all circumstances including risk factors involved in war service. Therefore, it concluded that bareboat charter hire rates were indeed fair remuneration.

In the dissenting opinion for Boston Tow Boat Co. v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law allowing the government to requisition private property during wartime without providing immediate compensation was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed this violated the Fifth Amendment, which states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. They contended that "just compensation" meant payment at current market value and should be made promptly after seizure of property, not deferred until an unspecified future date as allowed by the statute in question. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential abuse of power if such deferral were permitted in times of emergency or war.