In the case of Sloop Sally v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a vessel that had been seized by federal authorities for violating customs laws could be released from custody and returned to its owner. The court held that it could not, as the seizure was lawful under existing statutes and regulations governing maritime trade at the time. Furthermore, they found that no damages were due to either party since there had been no breach of contract between them or any other legal wrong committed by either side in this matter. Ultimately, this decision established an important precedent regarding how vessels can be lawfully seized by federal authorities when suspected of engaging in unlawful activities on navigable waters within U.S jurisdiction

In the case of Sloop Sally v. The United States, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. He noted that Congress had granted appellate jurisdiction to this Court and it was therefore obligated to exercise its discretion when deciding whether or not to hear an appeal. Furthermore, he argued that while there were certain technicalities involved in this particular case, they did not render it unworthy of consideration by the Supreme Court. In conclusion, Chief Justice Marshall maintained his belief that appeals should be heard whenever possible and urged his colleagues on the bench to reconsider their decision and grant an appeal in this instance.