In the 1962 case Marchese v. United States, the Supreme Court examined whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear a claim for damages against the U.S. government and its employees under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The plaintiff, Frank Marchese, was injured while working on an Army base in Italy and sought compensation from his employer - a private contractor - as well as from several individual government employees who he alleged were negligent in causing his injuries. The lower courts dismissed his claims based on their interpretation of FTCA provisions that exclude certain torts committed abroad from being actionable. The Supreme Court affirmed these decisions, ruling that Congress intended to limit liability under the FTCA to tortious acts or omissions occurring within U.S territory only. Therefore, it held that American courts lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Marchese's claims because they arose out of events happening outside of America's territorial boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for Marchese v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling set a dangerous precedent by allowing law enforcement officers to disregard constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in their pursuit of criminal convictions. They contended that such practices not only undermine individual liberties but also erode public trust in law enforcement agencies and judicial institutions. Therefore, they were of the view that any evidence obtained unlawfully should be excluded from trial proceedings as per 'exclusionary rule'. This would serve as a deterrent against future violations by police officers while upholding citizens' constitutional rights.