In the case of Davis, Federal Agent, et al. v. Preston, Administratrix (1929), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a federal agent could not be held personally liable for damages resulting from acts performed in their official capacity unless they acted with malice or intent to cause harm. The case arose when Mrs. Preston sued Special Prohibition Agent Davis and other agents for trespassing on her property and destroying personal items while searching for illegal alcohol during prohibition enforcement activities without a warrant. The court found that although the agents had exceeded their authority by conducting an unwarranted search, they were protected by sovereign immunity because they were acting within their general scope of duty and did not act maliciously or intend to cause harm.

In the dissenting opinion for Davis, Federal Agent, et al. v. Preston, Administratrix (1929), Justice Stone argued that the federal government should not be held liable for damages caused by a federal agent acting within his official capacity and duties. He contended that such liability would undermine the ability of federal agents to perform their jobs effectively and without fear of personal financial repercussions. Furthermore, he believed it was inappropriate to apply state law in determining whether or not a federal agent could be sued for actions taken while performing his job because this would subject them to potentially inconsistent legal standards across different states. Instead, he suggested that any grievances against a federal officer's conduct should be addressed through administrative channels rather than civil lawsuits.