James Buckley, the claimant of three bales and eight cases of cloth, brought a case against the United States to the Supreme Court. He argued that he was entitled to compensation for his goods which were seized by customs officers in 1844 as they believed them to be imported illegally from England. The court found that while there had been an illegal seizure, it did not entitle Buckley to any damages because he could not prove ownership or possession prior to importation. Furthermore, since no duty had been paid on these goods when they entered port and therefore no revenue collected by the government from their sale or use, there was nothing for which Buckley could receive compensation. Ultimately this decision established precedent that claimants must demonstrate both ownership and possession before importation in order for them to be eligible for reparations due to illegal seizures made by customs officials.

In the case of James Buckley, Claimant of Three Bales and Eight Cases of Cloth v. The United States, Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have found for Buckley on his claim against the government. He reasoned that since there was no evidence to prove otherwise, it could be assumed that all three bales and eight cases were imported into Philadelphia by Buckley before they were seized by customs officials. Furthermore, he argued that even if some part or parcel had been brought in after June 1st 1842 (the date when an act went into effect prohibiting certain imports) then only those goods would be subject to forfeiture; not all three bales and eight cases as a whole. Therefore, Justice McLean concluded that under these circumstances justice required judgment for the claimant because there was no proof presented to show any violation of law on his part with respect to this shipment.