The Supreme Court case of The Euphrates involved a dispute between the United States and France over ownership of a ship. The French government had seized the vessel, which was owned by an American citizen, while it was in port at Marseilles. In response to this action, the United States filed suit against France for damages caused by their seizure of the vessel. After hearing arguments from both sides, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that although there were some technical issues with how France had handled its seizure of The Euphrates, they did not rise to level necessary for compensation under international law. He further held that since no treaty or other agreement existed between the two countries regarding such matters as seizures on vessels in foreign ports, any claims must be settled through diplomatic channels rather than through legal proceedings before US courts.

In The Euphrates, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a vessel that had been captured by an enemy during wartime could be sold in order to pay for damages caused by its capture. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Story argued that such sales were not allowed under international law and should not be permitted in this case. He noted that it would set a dangerous precedent if vessels taken as prizes of war could be sold without regard for their original owners' rights or interests. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such sales would encourage belligerent nations to seize ships from neutral countries with impunity and then sell them off without any compensation being paid out to the rightful owners. Ultimately, Justice Story concluded that permitting these types of sales violated both domestic and international laws governing maritime warfare and thus should not have been allowed in this instance.