The Paquete Habana case of 1899 was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that established an important precedent in international law. The case involved two Cuban fishing vessels, the Paquete Habana and the Lola, which were seized by U.S. naval forces during the Spanish-American War on suspicion of carrying contraband goods for Spain. The owners of these ships sued for their return, arguing that customary international law exempted coastal fishing vessels from capture during times of war due to their non-military nature and importance to local economies. In its ruling, the Supreme Court sided with them and ordered that both boats be returned along with compensation for any damages incurred while they were impounded. The court's decision underscored two key principles: first, it affirmed that customary international law is part of American jurisprudence unless explicitly overridden by legislation; secondly, it highlighted how courts should interpret such laws based on "the general consent of civilized nations" as reflected in their longstanding practices or customs rather than formal treaties alone.

In the dissenting opinion for The Paquete Habana case, Justice Brown disagreed with the majority's decision to release two fishing vessels captured during war. He argued that international law did not exempt coastal fishing vessels from capture because they were still capable of aiding in warfare and thus should be considered enemy property. Furthermore, he contended that it was inappropriate for courts to establish new principles of international law based on humanitarian considerations rather than established legal precedents or treaties between nations. In his view, such decisions should be left to political branches of government which are better equipped to handle diplomatic relations and potential repercussions from other countries. Therefore, he believed that the court had overstepped its boundaries by ruling in favor of releasing the captured vessels.