In the case of Ahrenfeldt v. Miller, as Alien Property Custodian in 1922, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property seized during World War I under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The plaintiff, Ahrenfeldt, was a Danish citizen who had invested in American properties before and during WWI through his German-based company. After America entered into war against Germany, these properties were confiscated by Francis P. Miller acting as Alien Property Custodian - an official responsible for handling assets owned by enemies at war time. Ahrenfeldt argued that he should not be considered an enemy since Denmark was neutral during WWI; therefore his property shouldn't have been seized. However, because his investments were made through a German company which is classified as "enemy" according to wartime laws at that period ,the court ruled against him stating that it's irrelevant whether or not he personally was an enemy but rather if the entity controlling those assets (his German company) could be classified so. The decision set precedent on how foreign investment can be affected by international conflict and highlighted potential risks associated with investing through entities based in countries potentially hostile to United States.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ahrenfeldt v. Miller, as Alien Property Custodian, argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The dissent contended that this law did not intend to deprive American citizens of their property without due process or just compensation simply because they were residing in enemy territory during wartime. Instead, it was meant to prevent actual enemies from using such property against U.S interests. The dissent further stated that if Congress had intended for such broad interpretation and application of this act, it would have explicitly said so within its provisions. Therefore, according to the dissenting justices' view, Mrs.Ahrenfeldt should not have been deprived her inheritance rights based on her residency alone since she remained an American citizen and there wasn't any evidence suggesting she acted against U.S interests.