In the case of United States ex rel. Parish v. MacVeagh, Secretary of the Treasury in 1908, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a claim for payment from a government contract could be enforced by mandamus (a judicial writ issued as a command to an inferior court or ordering a person to perform a public or statutory duty). The plaintiff, Parish, had entered into contracts with the U.S. Government for dredging services and claimed that he was owed money under these contracts but had not been paid due to insufficient appropriations by Congress. He sought mandamus relief against Secretary of Treasury Franklin MacVeagh. The Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction over such claims because they were essentially contractual disputes rather than issues involving official duties of public officers which are typically addressed through mandamus actions. The Court stated that any remedy should come from Congress appropriating sufficient funds rather than forcing payments via judicial order. Furthermore, it emphasized that while contractors may have legitimate expectations based on their agreements with government entities; those expectations do not create enforceable rights if there is no appropriation made by Congress specifically for their payment.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States ex rel. Parish v. MacVeagh, Secretary of the Treasury argued that a claimant should not be barred from receiving funds simply because they were initially unaware of their entitlement to them. The dissent emphasized that it was unjust for an individual who had been wronged by the government to lose out on compensation due to ignorance or lack of knowledge about their rights and legal procedures. It also pointed out that there was no statutory limitation period applicable in this case, meaning there should be no time limit on when claims could be made against misappropriated funds held by the government.