In Soriano v. United States (1956), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the interpretation of the Surplus Property Act of 1944, which allowed for certain claims against surplus property to be filed within three years after such claim first accrued. The petitioner, Soriano, was a Philippine national who had his property seized by U.S military forces during World War II and sought compensation under this act in 1948 but was denied due to being an enemy alien at that time. He refiled his claim in 1952 when he became eligible but it was dismissed as untimely. The central issue before the court was whether Congress intended for exceptions like these to extend or toll the statutory period. In a unanimous decision led by Justice Felix Frankfurter, they held that there were no provisions in place allowing for extensions beyond what is explicitly stated in law - thus affirming lower courts' decisions and ruling against Soriano's appeal.

In the dissenting opinion for Soriano v. United States, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 2680(a) of the Federal Tort Claims Act was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that this section should not be read to bar all claims arising out of a federal employee's performance or failure to perform a discretionary function or duty, but only those where discretion is exercised at a policy-making level. In his view, this would include decisions made by Congress, Cabinet officers and other high-level officials who make basic policy choices for the Government as opposed to ordinary day-to-day operations carried out by lower-ranking employees. The Justice believed that such an interpretation would better align with Congressional intent when drafting the statute and avoid unfairly denying redress to individuals harmed by negligent acts committed in carrying out government policies.