In the 1923 U.S. Supreme Court case, Transportes Maritimos do Estado v. Al Media, a Portuguese shipping company (Transportes Maritimos do Estado) sued an American firm (Al Media) for damages incurred during World War I when two of its ships were seized by German submarines while under charter to Al Media. The key issue was whether or not the "war clause" in their contract exempted Al Media from liability for such losses. The lower courts ruled in favor of the Portuguese company and ordered Al Media to pay compensation. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was decided that this ruling had been incorrect because it failed to consider international law principles regarding neutrality rights and duties during wartime - specifically that neutral vessels are entitled to free passage on high seas even during war unless they carry contraband goods or engage in hostile activities against belligerent powers. The court held that since there was no evidence suggesting either ship violated these rules before being captured by Germany, they should have been considered as neutral vessels at all times relevant here; hence their seizure constituted a breach of international law which could not be excused through contractual provisions like those contained within parties' agreement here.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Transportes Maritimos Do Estado v. Al Media argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that a Portuguese shipping company was not immune from suit in U.S. courts, was incorrect. The dissent contended that international law principles should have been applied and these would grant immunity to foreign states' commercial activities conducted within their own territory. They believed this principle should extend even when such activities had effects outside of their borders or involved entities from other countries. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant statutes and treaties, arguing it failed to properly consider historical context and precedent cases where similar issues were addressed by the Court.