In Dalehite et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government over a group of private citizens who had sued for damages following a catastrophic explosion at a Texas City fertilizer plant in 1947 that killed hundreds and injured thousands more. The plaintiffs argued that negligence on part of federal employees led to the disaster as they failed to properly supervise and inspect operations at the plant which was manufacturing ammonium nitrate fertilizer under contract with the government during World War II. However, by a 4-3 majority, justices held that while it may have been possible for federal workers to prevent this tragedy through better oversight, their actions were protected by what is known as "discretionary function exception" within Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). This provision shields government from liability when its employees are carrying out duties involving an element of judgment or choice - even if those choices turn out badly.

In the dissenting opinion for Dalehite et al. v. United States, Justice Robert H. Jackson and two other justices argued that the majority's decision to absolve the government of liability was a misinterpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). They contended that this ruling effectively rendered FTCA meaningless by creating an overly broad interpretation of "discretionary function." The dissenting justices believed that negligence in carrying out a policy should not be protected under discretionary immunity, which they felt should only apply to decisions on whether or not to adopt policies themselves. They also disagreed with the majority's view that safety measures were part of policy planning rather than operational activities subject to tort claims. Furthermore, they criticized how causation was determined in this case and suggested it would set an unreasonably high standard for future claimants seeking compensation from government negligence.