In the case of Kawanakoa v. Polyblank, two Hawaiian princesses, David Kawānanakoa and Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole, sued their former secretary Frederick Wundenberg (under his pseudonym "Polyblank") for misappropriating funds while handling their financial affairs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on February 26th, 1906. The key issue was whether or not a sovereign could sue in an American court without its consent; this question arose because at that time Hawaii had been annexed by the United States but retained some aspects of sovereignty. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, held that although generally foreign sovereigns cannot sue in U.S courts without consent due to diplomatic immunity laws, these did not apply as Hawaii was no longer truly foreign after annexation by the US. Therefore it was permissible for individuals acting under color of its authority - such as Princesses Kawānanakoa and Kalaniana'ole - to bring suit.

In the dissenting opinion for KAWANANAKOA v. POLYBLANK, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles of law and justice. He contended that a public official should not be held personally liable for damages resulting from actions taken in their official capacity unless they acted maliciously or outside of their authority. In this case, he believed there was no evidence to suggest either circumstance applied to Polyblank’s actions as an agent appointed by the Hawaiian government to sell crown lands after annexation by the U.S.. Therefore, he disagreed with holding him personally responsible for any losses incurred by Kawananakoa due to his execution of those duties. Furthermore, Harlan asserted that if every act done without express legal authorization could expose officials to personal liability, it would deter competent individuals from accepting public office and impede effective governance.