The U.S. Supreme Court case Banco Mexicano de Comercio e Industria et al. v. Deutsche Bank; Miller, Alien Property Custodian, et al., 1923 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of certain securities during World War I. The German government had transferred these securities to Deutsche Bank in New York for safekeeping before the United States entered the war and subsequently seized them under the Trading with Enemy Act when it did enter into conflict. After Mexico nationalized its banks, Banco Mexicano claimed that it was actually the owner of those securities and sued for their return from both Deutsche Bank and A Mitchell Palmer as Alien Property Custodian (the official responsible for managing enemy property). The court ruled against Banco Mexicano on two grounds: first, because they found no evidence that Mexico's nationalization law intended to transfer ownership of assets located abroad; secondly, because they held that even if such intent were present, international law would not recognize such a unilateral act by one country affecting property within another country's jurisdiction.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Banco Mexicano de Comercio e Industria et al. v. Deutsche Bank; Miller, Alien Property Custodian, et al., argued that the majority's decision to allow a foreign bank to sue another foreign bank in U.S courts was an overreach of jurisdiction and could potentially lead to diplomatic issues with other nations. The dissenters believed that such disputes should be resolved within their respective countries or through international arbitration rather than involving American courts unnecessarily. They also expressed concern about setting a precedent for future cases where U.S courts might be expected to adjudicate on matters between two foreign entities without any direct connection or impact on America itself.