In the case of North American Commercial Company v. United States (1897), the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over fur seal hunting rights in Alaska's Pribilof Islands. The North American Commercial Company had been granted exclusive rights to hunt seals by the U.S government, but these were revoked following international treaties aimed at protecting declining seal populations. The company sought compensation from the federal government for loss of profits due to this revocation, arguing that it constituted a breach of contract. The court held that while there was indeed an implied contract between both parties, its terms did not guarantee uninterrupted hunting privileges regardless of circumstances and future legislation or treaties. It further stated that such contracts should be interpreted with consideration for public policy and national interests - in this case, conservation efforts agreed upon internationally. Therefore, no compensation was owed as there had been no violation or breach by the U.S Government; they were within their right to prioritize environmental concerns over commercial ones when necessary.

In the dissenting opinion for North American Commercial Company v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the contract between North American Commercial Company and the U.S. government was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that under this contract, which granted exclusive rights to take fur seals on certain islands in exchange for a yearly rental fee and percentage of profits, there were implied obligations on both sides: for example, an obligation by the company not to overhunt or deplete seal populations beyond sustainable levels; but also an obligation by the government to protect these hunting rights from interference by foreign entities. They disagreed with how damages were calculated when British vessels infringed upon these hunting rights - arguing instead that any losses should be determined based on actual harm suffered (i.e., loss of seals), rather than hypothetical lost profits due to reduced catch limits imposed as a result of international arbitration proceedings related to this dispute.