In Thompson v. Thompson, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a wife could sue her husband for personal injuries inflicted by him during their marriage. The case arose after Mrs. Thompson filed a lawsuit against Mr. Thompson seeking damages for physical and mental suffering caused by his alleged assault and battery on her while they were still married. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Thompson, upholding the common law principle that husbands and wives are legally one entity, thus preventing them from suing each other for torts committed during their marriage (a doctrine known as interspousal immunity). The majority opinion held that allowing such lawsuits would disrupt domestic tranquility and potentially lead to fraudulent claims. However, this decision has been heavily criticized over time due to its inherent gender bias and it's no longer good law today; most jurisdictions now allow spouses to sue each other for intentional torts committed during the course of their marriage.

In the dissenting opinion for Thompson v. Thompson, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a federal law that allowed women to sue their husbands in court for assault and battery. He argued that this law was not intended to apply to domestic disputes between spouses but rather was meant to protect women from physical violence by men outside of marriage. According to him, extending this protection within marital relationships would disrupt family harmony and undermine male authority within households, which he believed were essential components of societal order at the time. Furthermore, he contended that if Congress had intended such a radical change in marital relations it would have stated so explicitly in the statute itself or through legislative history - neither of which occurred here according his analysis.