The Astrea was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1816. The dispute involved two vessels, the Astrea and the Minerva, which had been seized by French privateers during wartime. The owners of both ships sued for damages in a federal court on behalf of their respective vessels. At issue was whether or not France could be held liable for damages caused to American property due to its actions during war time. In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, it was determined that while nations are generally immune from suit under international law, this immunity does not extend to cases involving damage done to neutral countries' property as part of hostilities between other nations. As such, France could be held responsible for any losses suffered as a result of its actions against American-owned ships and goods at sea during wartime. This decision established an important precedent regarding sovereign immunity and remains influential today when determining liability in similar disputes between foreign powers and neutral states or individuals

In The Astrea, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a vessel that had been captured by French privateers during the Napoleonic Wars could be considered an enemy ship. Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that although it is true that vessels belonging to France were generally considered enemies of the United States at this time, there was no evidence presented as to who owned or controlled this particular vessel when it was captured. He further noted that since there were no facts indicating any hostile intent on behalf of its owners or crew, and because they had not committed any act of hostility against American citizens prior to their capture, they should not be treated as enemies but rather as neutrals. In conclusion, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that if Congress intended for such vessels to be treated differently than neutral ships then it must pass legislation specifically stating so; otherwise these vessels should remain subject only to those laws applicable under international law regarding neutrality and non-belligerency.