Desmare v. United States is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1876. The case involved a dispute between the United States and a French citizen, Desmare, over the ownership of a ship. Desmare had purchased the ship from a French citizen, who had purchased it from a United States citizen. The United States argued that the ship was subject to a lien for unpaid duties, and that the lien was superior to Desmare's claim of ownership. The Supreme Court held that the lien was valid, and that the United States had a superior claim to the ship. The Court reasoned that the lien was valid because the United States had a right to collect duties on the ship, and that the lien was superior to Desmare's claim because the United States had a superior right to the ship. The Court also held that the United States was not required to give notice to Desmare of the lien, as the lien was valid regardless of whether Desmare was aware of it. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States had a valid lien on the ship, and that the lien was superior to Desmare's claim of ownership. The Court also held that the United States was not required to give notice to Desmare of the lien.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Desmare v. United States, arguing that the majority’s decision was an improper extension of admiralty jurisdiction and a violation of due process rights. The case concerned whether or not a shipowner could be held liable for damages caused by his vessel to another vessel while navigating on navigable waters within the boundaries of a state. The majority found that admiralty had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, but Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion because it would allow federal courts to exercise authority over matters traditionally left to state courts without any constitutional basis for doing so. He further argued that allowing federal court jurisdiction violated due process rights since it deprived individuals from their right to have disputes heard in local tribunals familiar with local customs and laws applicable to maritime cases. In addition, he noted that Congress had never passed legislation granting exclusive admiralty jurisdiction over such cases and thus there was no legal basis for extending its power beyond what is explicitly provided by law or constitution. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that if Congress wanted admiralty courts to have exclusive authority then they should pass appropriate legislation rather than relying on judicial interpretation alone as justification for expanding its powers into areas where it has no explicit authorization from either statute or constitution