The Santa Maria was a Spanish vessel that had been seized by the United States. The Spanish Consul, as libellant, brought suit against the United States in order to recover damages for the seizure of his ship. The Supreme Court held that while it could not award damages for an illegal act committed by a foreign government, it did have jurisdiction over claims made against its own citizens and thus could grant reparations to those who suffered losses due to their actions. Furthermore, since there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on behalf of the US government or its agents at the time of seizure, they were not liable for any compensation. However, if such evidence existed then they would be responsible and liable under international law. This case established important precedent regarding how nations should handle disputes between themselves and other countries when dealing with matters involving property rights and sovereignty issues.

In the case of The Santa Maria, the dissenting opinion argued that a foreign consul should not be allowed to bring suit in an American court. According to Chief Justice Marshall, who wrote the dissent, this would set a dangerous precedent and could lead to other nations attempting similar suits against America. He also noted that if such suits were allowed it would create confusion as different countries have different laws and customs which may conflict with those of America. Furthermore, he argued that allowing foreign consuls to sue in American courts could open up avenues for fraud or abuse by unscrupulous individuals seeking personal gain from their position as representatives of another nation. Ultimately, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that while there was no doubt about Spain's right to compensation for damages done by Americans on Spanish property abroad, it should be sought through diplomatic channels rather than via litigation in an American court.