In the case of Johnson v. U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 1929, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a federal court had jurisdiction over a suit brought by an individual against the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation (USSBEFC). The plaintiff, Johnson, argued that he was owed money for services rendered under contract to USSBEFC. However, USSBEFC contended that as it was a government entity and therefore immune from such suits due to sovereign immunity - legal doctrine preventing lawsuits against governments without their consent. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Johnson stating that while typically government entities are protected by sovereign immunity this did not apply in this instance because Congress had explicitly provided for such suits in its chartering legislation of USSBEFC. Therefore, they concluded that federal courts did indeed have jurisdiction over disputes involving contracts made by the corporation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Johnson v. U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and legal principles regarding sovereign immunity. The dissent contended that, by allowing a suit against a corporation owned by the United States government, the court effectively permitted a lawsuit against the United States itself - something traditionally barred under sovereign immunity doctrine. This interpretation could potentially open up floodgates for lawsuits against other governmental entities and disrupt operations of public corporations acting on behalf of federal government interests. Furthermore, it was suggested that any disputes involving such corporations should be resolved through legislative action rather than judicial intervention.