The United States brought a case against the Ship Garonne, William Skiddy and others for alleged violations of U.S. neutrality laws during the war between France and Spain in 1823-1830. The Supreme Court held that it was not necessary to prove actual knowledge of the war by those on board as long as they had reasonable notice or warning from their own government or other sources that there was a state of war existing between two foreign nations at sea. Furthermore, any vessel found within three miles of an enemy's coast is presumed to be engaged in hostile operations unless proven otherwise by its crew members. This decision established important precedent regarding what constitutes sufficient evidence for proving violations of neutrality laws under international law and maritime regulations today.

In the United States v. The Ship Garonne, William Skiddy and Others, Claimants case, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the majority's decision to deny compensation for damages caused by an American vessel was not supported by any legal authority or precedent. He further stated that it would be unjust to allow such damage without providing some form of recompense as this could lead to similar acts in future cases with impunity. Furthermore, he noted that although there may have been negligence on behalf of those responsible for the incident in question, they should still be held liable if their actions resulted in harm or loss suffered by another party. Finally, he concluded his dissent by stating that while Congress has power over maritime affairs and can pass laws regulating them accordingly; however it cannot take away rights already established under common law which provide redress when one is wronged through no fault of their own.