Dunlop v. Munroe was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1812. The dispute arose when James Dunlop, an American citizen, sued William Munroe for damages caused to his property during the War of 1812. At issue before the court was whether or not citizens could sue foreign governments for damages sustained during war time without first obtaining permission from Congress. The court held that individuals had no right to bring suit against foreign nations without congressional authorization and dismissed Dunlop's claim on this basis. This decision established a precedent which has been followed ever since; namely, that private citizens may not seek redress from foreign countries for injuries suffered as a result of hostilities between those countries and America unless authorized by Congress beforehand.

In the case of Dunlop v. Munroe, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had erred in its decision to deny an appeal from a circuit court ruling on a contract dispute between two parties. He asserted that the Supreme Court should have heard and decided upon this matter as it was within their jurisdiction to do so. Furthermore, Marshall argued that since there were questions of fact involved in this particular case, it was necessary for them to hear evidence presented by both sides before making any final determination or judgment. In his view, denying an appeal would be tantamount to deciding without hearing all relevant facts and testimony; thus depriving one party of due process rights under law. Ultimately, Marshall concluded that while he respected the majority's opinion on this matter, he could not agree with their decision not to grant an appeal from the lower court ruling given its potential implications for future cases involving similar issues and disputes between litigants.