In the 1903 case of J. Ribas y Hijo v. United States, a Spanish company sued the U.S government for damages incurred during the American military occupation of Puerto Rico in 1898 following the Spanish-American War. The claim was based on an alleged violation of Article IX of Treaty of Paris which ended that war and stipulated protection for property rights in territories ceded to America by Spain. The plaintiff argued that their coffee plantation had been occupied and used by US troops without compensation, causing significant loss to their business operations. The Supreme Court ruled against J.Ribas y Hijo stating that while it is true that private property should not be taken without just compensation under normal circumstances, this rule does not apply during times of war or military necessity as per international law norms at those times. Therefore, no breach occurred because such actions were justified due to wartime exigencies.

In the dissenting opinion for J. Ribas Y Hijo v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with international law and previous court rulings regarding property rights during wartime. He contended that under international law, private property on land should not be subject to seizure or destruction unless it is being used for military purposes by an enemy in a time of war. Furthermore, he asserted that even if such property were seized or destroyed under these circumstances, compensation would still be owed to its owners as per established precedent from prior cases involving similar issues of wartime confiscation and damage to private properties. Thus, according to Justice Harlan’s view point, Ribas y Hijo had a valid claim against the U.S government for damages incurred due their sugar mill being burned down by U.S forces during Spanish-American War in Cuba.