The Ariadne was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the Ariadne, a British vessel, and the owners of the cargo it was carrying. The cargo owners had contracted with the Ariadne to transport their goods from England to the United States. However, the Ariadne was damaged in a storm and the cargo owners sued the vessel owners for damages. The Supreme Court held that the vessel owners were not liable for the damages caused by the storm. The Court reasoned that the vessel owners had taken all reasonable precautions to protect the cargo and that the storm was an act of God that could not have been prevented. The Court also held that the vessel owners were not liable for any losses incurred by the cargo owners due to the delay in delivery caused by the storm. The Court's decision in The Ariadne established the principle that vessel owners are not liable for damages caused by an act of God. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then and is still in effect today.

In The Ariadne case, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a vessel that had been sold in good faith to an American citizen by a foreign government could be seized and forfeited for violating U.S. neutrality laws during the Civil War. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that Congress did not have authority under the Constitution to pass such laws as they were too broad and vague in their scope of application. He further noted that even if Congress did have this power, it should only apply prospectively rather than retroactively punishing those who acted in good faith prior to its enactment. Additionally, he argued that since there was no evidence presented at trial showing any intent on behalf of the purchaser or seller to violate neutrality laws, forfeiture would constitute an unjust punishment without due process of law being observed first. Ultimately Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating “the right secured by our Constitution is one which cannot be taken away without due process of law” and therefore urged reversal of the lower court's decision upholding forfeiture in this case