The U.S. Supreme Court case Land, Chairman, United States Maritime Commission, et al. v. Dollar et al., 1946 revolved around the issue of whether or not the federal government had overstepped its authority by seizing control of a private company during World War II without providing just compensation to its owners as required by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The Dollar family owned and operated shipping lines in Asia but lost control when their assets were seized under an executive order issued during wartime for national security reasons. They sued on grounds that this constituted an illegal taking of property without due process or fair compensation. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled in favor of the Dollars stating that while it was within governmental power to seize properties for public use during emergencies such as war times; however, they must provide reasonable compensation afterwards which wasn't done in this case thus violating constitutional rights under Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Land, Chairman, United States Maritime Commission v. Dollar et al., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law regarding sovereign immunity. He contended that the government should not be held liable for actions taken in its capacity as a sovereign entity unless it has expressly consented to such liability. In this case, he believed there had been no such consent and therefore disagreed with the majority's ruling against the U.S. Maritime Commission. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential implications of this decision on future cases involving governmental bodies or officials acting under statutory authority.