The Adula case in 1899 revolved around a British steamship, the Adula, which was seized by U.S. authorities off the coast of Cuba during the Spanish-American War for allegedly violating blockade laws. The ship's owners claimed that they were not given proper notice of the blockade and thus could not be held accountable for breaking it. However, upon review, it was found that sufficient notification had been provided to all neutral parties regarding this blockade through diplomatic channels as well as public announcements in newspapers widely circulated among shipping communities. Therefore, ignorance of such a proclamation did not excuse non-compliance with its terms under international law norms at that time. The Supreme Court ruled against the owners of Adula upholding its seizure as lawful under international law and asserting America’s right to enforce blockades during times of war.

In the dissenting opinion for The Adula case, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of maritime law and its application to this specific situation was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the ship in question should not have been seized by U.S authorities because it did not violate any laws or regulations. They contended that there were no clear guidelines stating a foreign vessel could be detained if they had on board individuals who intended to violate U.S immigration laws once ashore. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view about how international law applies in such cases, arguing instead for a more restrictive interpretation which would limit U.S jurisdiction over foreign vessels unless explicit violations occurred within American territorial waters. In their view, upholding such seizures without clear legal basis threatened international relations and undermined principles of sovereignty and freedom of navigation.