In the 1917 case of Saalfield, Administrator of Brown, Surviving Claimant v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a claim for damages could be made against the U.S. government under an act that allowed claims for property lost in military service during Civil War and Mexican-American War. The plaintiff's ancestor had provided horses and wagons to Union forces during Civil War but never received payment due to alleged fraud by a quartermaster. After his death, his heirs sought compensation from Congress through private legislation which referred their claim to Court of Claims with instructions "to hear and determine said claim upon its merits". However, this court dismissed it on grounds that no contract existed between parties as required by law at time services were rendered. The Supreme Court upheld this decision stating that while Congress can waive sovereign immunity allowing itself to be sued; it cannot create or imply contracts where none exist nor change legal requirements necessary for such contracts retrospectively. Therefore even though there may have been moral obligation towards plaintiff’s ancestor who suffered loss aiding Union cause; legally he had not entered into any enforceable agreement with government hence his descendants could not make valid claim against it.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Saalfield, Administrator of Brown, Surviving Claimant v. United States argued that the majority's decision to deny compensation for a ship lost during wartime was unjust. The dissenters believed that the government should be held responsible for compensating private citizens when their property is destroyed as a result of military action, even if it occurs during times of war and even if those actions are necessary for national defense. They contended that failing to provide such compensation essentially amounts to an unlawful seizure or taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of international law and maritime law principles regarding liability for losses incurred due to lawful acts of war.