The Ex Parte Whitney Steamboat Corporation case in 1918 involved the Whitney Steamboat Corporation petitioning against a decision made by The District Court for Southern New York. The corporation's steamship had collided with another, causing damage. Initially, the district court decreed that both vessels were at fault and divided the damages equally between them. However, upon reargument, it was decided that only the Whitney vessel was to blame and thus should bear all costs of repair for both ships. This led to an increase in liability from $37,500 to $75,000 for Whitney Steamboat Corp., which they contested on grounds of due process violation under Fifth Amendment rights as they weren't given notice or opportunity to defend against this increased penalty before it was imposed. The Supreme Court dismissed their writ of certiorari (request for judicial review), stating that since there wasn’t any final decree yet from lower courts regarding division of damages after collision liability determination; hence no constitutional question arose warranting its intervention.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex Parte Whitney Steamboat Corporation argued that the Supreme Court should have jurisdiction over cases involving maritime liens. The dissenting justices believed that, under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts were granted exclusive jurisdiction over all matters related to admiralty and maritime law. They contended that this included cases concerning maritime liens, which are claims against a ship for services rendered or damages caused by the ship. The majority decision held otherwise, stating that state courts could also hear such cases if they chose to do so. This disagreement stemmed from differing interpretations of constitutional law and its application to specific areas like maritime lien disputes.