In the case of United States v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc., et al., 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government was not liable for damages caused by its military forces during wartime operations in foreign territories under enemy control. The claimants were three oil companies operating in the Philippines who sought compensation for property destroyed by American troops to prevent it from falling into Japanese hands during World War II. They argued that this constituted a 'taking' of private property without just compensation, violating their Fifth Amendment rights as corporations incorporated within an American territory at war with a common enemy and thus entitled to constitutional protection against uncompensated takings by their own government's armed forces acting abroad under exigent circumstances. The court rejected these claims on two grounds: firstly, they held that such actions are part-and-parcel of warfare and do not constitute 'takings'; secondly, they found no precedent or legal basis for extending Fifth Amendment protections beyond domestic borders or applying them to acts committed abroad during active hostilities.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc., Justice Douglas argued that the U.S. government should be held liable for damages caused by its own military forces during wartime, even if those actions were taken to prevent enemy use of property. He contended that it was unjust to allow a private party to bear all losses when their property is destroyed in furtherance of public interests and national defense, especially when there's no immediate threat or danger present at the time of destruction. The majority’s decision not only contradicted previous rulings but also set a dangerous precedent where governments could escape liability for any damage inflicted during war under the guise of military necessity without proper scrutiny or justification.