In the case of Richards et al. v. United States et al., 1961, the plaintiffs were survivors and representatives of victims who died in a plane crash over Brazil in 1956. The aircraft was owned by Transportes Aereos Nacional, a Brazilian company, but had been leased from and maintained by Pan American World Airways Inc., an American corporation. The petitioners argued that under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), they could sue the U.S government for negligence as it failed to properly inspect and certify the airplane's airworthiness through its agency - Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA). However, their claim was rejected on grounds that FTCA does not apply outside territorial limits of USA unless there is explicit statutory command which wasn't present here. Furthermore, CAA’s duty to inspect foreign aircrafts did not extend to ensuring safety of passengers aboard those planes; rather it aimed at protecting people & property on ground within US against damage from such airplanes crashing into them.

In the dissenting opinion for Richards et al. v. United States et al., Justice Black argued that the majority's decision to allow a suit against the U.S government for damages caused by atomic testing was in direct violation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). He contended that this act specifically exempts any claim arising out of combatant activities during time of war, which he believed included atomic tests conducted during Cold War tensions with Russia. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "discretionary function," asserting that it should be broadly interpreted to include all decisions made within an agency’s discretion and not just policy-making ones as suggested by the majority ruling. Thus, according to Justice Black, since both these exemptions applied in this case, no lawsuit could be brought under FTCA against US Government.