In Hawthorne, Claimant of the Brig Clarissa Claiborne v. The United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a vessel that had been captured by an enemy and then recaptured by American forces could be considered as having been "lawfully condemned" under maritime law. At issue was whether or not the original capture of the vessel constituted sufficient grounds for condemnation in a court of admiralty. The Court ultimately held that it did not; rather, they determined that there must have been some form of legal proceedings initiated against the captor before any such condemnation could take place. In doing so, they established important precedent regarding how vessels taken during wartime should be treated under maritime law and clarified what constitutes lawful condemnation in these cases.

In Hawthorne, Claimant of the Brig Clarissa Claiborne v. The United States, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have found for the claimant and awarded damages to him. He reasoned that under maritime law, when an enemy captures a vessel from its rightful owner during wartime, it is considered as if they had stolen it outright; thus any damage done to or by the vessel while in their possession must be compensated for. In this case, although there was no direct evidence of injury caused by U.S forces during their capture and detention of the brig Clarissa Claiborne (which belonged to Hawthorne), circumstantial evidence showed that such injuries were likely incurred due to their actions - namely because other vessels captured at around same time suffered similar damages - and therefore Hawthorn should be entitled to compensation from them regardless.