In the case of British Transport Commission v. United States et al., 1956, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States. The dispute arose from a collision between a vessel owned by the British Transport Commission and another owned by an American company during World War II. The U.S government had chartered this ship to transport goods for war efforts under Public Law 101, which indemnified such vessels against any loss or damage resulting from maritime risks while serving national defense interests. After the accident, both parties sought damages for their respective losses before an admiralty court in New York City. The central issue was whether Public Law 101 could shield private companies operating under its provisions from liability arising out of collisions at sea due to negligence on their part or not? In answering this question affirmatively, Justice Harlan held that Congress intended to protect these entities as long as they were performing services related directly with national defense activities during wartime conditions regardless of fault attributed to them concerning accidents occurring within such contexts.

In the dissenting opinion for British Transport Commission v. United States et al., Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Shipping Act and argued that it was not intended to apply to foreign governments operating in their sovereign capacity. He believed that Congress did not intend to subject a foreign government, acting as such, to regulation by an agency of another government unless its intention was clearly expressed. The language used in the statute did not explicitly include or exclude foreign governments from its purview, which led him to conclude that it should be interpreted narrowly so as not infringe upon national sovereignty. Furthermore, he noted that there were other legal avenues available if unfair practices occurred in international shipping trade; thus making this application unnecessary and potentially harmful diplomatically.