The Bello Corrunnes case was a dispute between the Spanish Consul and Claimant in 1821. The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not the United States could interfere with Spain's right of sovereignty over its own vessels, which were captured by American privateers during wartime. The court held that although it is true that nations have an inherent right to protect their property from foreign interference, this does not extend to cases where a nation has no legal claim on another vessel. Therefore, since Spain did not have any legal claim on the Bello Corrunnes vessel at issue in this case, it could not be protected under international law from being seized by American privateers during wartime. Ultimately, the court ruled against Spain and found that America had acted within its rights when capturing the ship for use as a prize of war.

In The Bello Corrunnes, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Spanish consul had the right to sue in an American court. The majority opinion held that he did not have such rights because of his diplomatic status and lack of citizenship. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, that there is no legal precedent for denying foreign diplomats access to U.S courts; secondly, that it would be unjust to deny someone their day in court when they are seeking justice for a wrong done against them by another party. He argued further that if Congress had intended to exclude foreign diplomats from suing in U.S courts then they should have made this clear through legislation rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation and discretion as was done here by the majority opinion. Ultimately, Justice Johnson's dissent failed but his arguments remain relevant today as we continue debating how much access non-citizens should have within our legal system