The Aurora case was a dispute between the claimants of the ship Aurora and its cargo, which had been seized by French privateers in 1812. The Supreme Court held that under international law, France could not lawfully seize neutral vessels or their cargoes during wartime unless they were carrying contraband goods. In this case, it was determined that none of the items on board constituted contraband as defined by international law at the time. Therefore, since there was no legal basis for seizing either vessel or cargo from a neutral nation such as America, France must pay damages to those who owned them. This ruling established an important precedent regarding how nations should treat each other's ships and property during times of war.

In The Aurora case, the Supreme Court ruled against the claimants who sought compensation for a ship that was seized by French forces during the Quasi-War. The majority opinion held that since France had not been officially declared an enemy of the United States at the time of seizure, no compensation could be awarded. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Story argued that even though there had been no formal declaration of war between France and America, it was clear to all parties involved in this conflict that hostilities existed between them. He further argued that if Congress intended to deny claims arising from such conflicts without a formal declaration of war then they should have made their intentions known through legislation rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation. Ultimately he concluded by stating “the justice due to individuals ought not…to depend upon mere technicalities” and thus urged Congress to pass laws providing relief for those affected by these types of situations.