In Roberts et al., Trustees v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States was liable for damages caused by the destruction of a lighthouse by Confederate forces during the Civil War. The Trustees of the lighthouse argued that the United States was liable for the damages because it had failed to protect the lighthouse from the Confederate forces. The United States argued that it was not liable because it had not been negligent in protecting the lighthouse. The Supreme Court held that the United States was not liable for the damages caused by the destruction of the lighthouse. The Court reasoned that the United States had not been negligent in protecting the lighthouse and that the destruction of the lighthouse was an act of war and not the result of any negligence on the part of the United States. The Court also noted that the destruction of the lighthouse was an act of war and that the United States was not liable for damages caused by acts of war. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the United States was not liable for the damages caused by the destruction of the lighthouse. The Court reasoned that the destruction of the lighthouse was an act of war and not the result of any negligence on the part of the United States.

In Roberts et al., Trustees v. United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a tax imposed by Congress on certain bonds issued by the state of Tennessee was unconstitutional. The majority opinion held that the tax did not violate any constitutional provisions and could be enforced against those who had purchased or owned such bonds prior to its enactment. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it violated both due process and contract clauses of the Constitution because it impaired an existing contractual obligation between Tennessee and bondholders without providing them with just compensation for their losses. He argued that if Congress wanted to impose a new tax on these bonds they should have done so prospectively rather than retroactively as this would have been more fair to all parties involved in issuing or owning such securities at the time of its passage.