The United States v. The Schooner Betsey and Charlotte, and Her Cargo was a case heard before the Supreme Court in 1808. It concerned a dispute between the United States government and two British subjects over ownership of cargo that had been seized from their vessel by an American privateer during the Quasi-War with France (1798–1800). The defendants argued that they were entitled to compensation for their losses under international law because they were not engaged in any hostile acts against America at the time of seizure. However, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled against them on grounds that there was no legal basis for such claims since Britain had not declared war on America or issued any formal declaration of neutrality concerning its conflict with France. He also noted that even if it could be established that Britain did have some kind of neutral status vis-à-vis both countries, this would still not entitle claimants to damages as long as their goods remained contraband according to US laws governing maritime trade during wartime. In conclusion, he held that “the right which belligerents possess...to capture enemy’s property found upon the ocean is too well established by usage and authority to admit doubt."

In the case of The United States v. The Schooner Betsey and Charlotte, and Her Cargo, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have allowed for restitution to be made by way of damages. He believed that it was inappropriate for a court to award damages when there had been no actual injury or loss suffered by either party. Furthermore, he argued that if such an action were taken then it would set a dangerous precedent whereby any person could bring suit against another without having actually suffered any harm or damage as long as they claimed some sort of legal right over them. In his view this would lead to unnecessary litigation and confusion in the courts since parties could claim rights over others even though those claims may not be valid under law. Ultimately, Marshall concluded that awarding damages in this case was improper because there had been no actual injury sustained by either side and thus restitution should not have been granted through monetary compensation alone but rather through other means such as specific performance or injunction orders from the court instead.