The Arrogante Barcelones was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1822. The claimant, the Consul General of Spain, argued that he had been wrongfully detained and his vessel seized by an American privateer during a voyage from Havana to Cadiz. He claimed damages for this wrongful act and sought compensation for losses suffered as a result of it. The court found that although there were some irregularities in how the seizure occurred, they did not rise to the level necessary to grant relief under international law or US statutes at that time. As such, no damages were awarded and the claim was dismissed without prejudice. This decision established important precedent regarding maritime seizures which is still applicable today when determining whether or not claims are valid under international law or US statutes governing maritime activity on high seas

In The Arrogante Barcelones case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Consul General of Spain. The court found that a Spanish vessel had been wrongfully seized by an American privateer and should be returned to its rightful owner. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this opinion on two grounds: firstly, he argued that under international law it was not necessary for a nation to prove ownership before seizing another's property; secondly, he argued that even if proof were required then there was sufficient evidence presented by Spain to demonstrate their claim over the vessel. He concluded his dissent with an assertion that “the decision is founded upon principles which are repugnant to all just ideas of national honor” as it would encourage other nations to seize vessels without due process or legal justification.