The Divina Pastora was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1819. The claimant, the Spanish Consul, argued that he had purchased a ship called the Divina Pastora from Spain and brought it to New York for repairs. He claimed that while his vessel was being repaired in New York harbor, it was seized by an American privateer without any legal authority or justification. The consul sought reparations for this seizure of his property as well as damages caused during its detention and imprisonment. In response to these claims, the court found that there were no grounds on which to grant relief since there had been no violation of international law or treaty between Spain and America at the time of capture. Furthermore, they ruled that even if such violations did exist then they would not be applicable retroactively due to their lack of noticeability prior to capture. Ultimately, this ruling meant that despite having suffered losses due to illegal actions taken against them by another party with whom they shared diplomatic relations; claimants could not seek redress through US courts unless those laws were already established beforehand

In the case of The Divina Pastora, the dissenting opinion argued that a Spanish Consul had no legal right to claim ownership of a ship seized by American forces during wartime. According to the dissenters, only Congress has authority over such matters and they have not granted any rights or privileges in this particular instance. Furthermore, even if Congress did grant some sort of privilege it would be limited to cases where there is an actual treaty between Spain and America which does not exist here. As such, since there was no evidence that either party had agreed upon anything regarding this matter then it should remain as is with neither side having any claims on it whatsoever.