In the 1923 Supreme Court case, Ex Parte in the Matter of The United States as Owner of Nineteen Barges and Four Towboats, Petitioner, the court addressed a dispute over damages incurred by barges owned by the U.S. government during World War I. The barges were damaged while being transported across seas for war efforts due to negligence on part of private contractors who had been hired to transport them. When these contractors refused to pay for repairs, arguing that they were not liable because they had been acting under orders from a public authority (the U.S. Government), it led to this litigation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States government stating that even though an act may be done under orders from a public authority or during wartime conditions, it does not exempt one from liability if such acts are negligent and cause damage or loss. This ruling established an important precedent regarding accountability and responsibility when working under governmental directives.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex Parte IN THE MATTER OF THE UNITED STATES, AS OWNER OF NINETEEN BARGES AND FOUR TOWBOATS, argued that the majority's decision to allow a suit against the United States government for damages caused by its vessels was incorrect. The dissenters believed this ruling violated sovereign immunity principles and expanded liability beyond what Congress intended when it passed legislation allowing suits for certain maritime incidents involving U.S. vessels. They contended that such lawsuits should be limited to cases where negligence or wrongful acts could be proven, not simply whenever damage occurred as part of normal operations. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "vessel" under federal law and felt it was too broad in including non-self-propelled barges within its scope.