The U.S. Supreme Court case Behn, Meyer & Company, Limited v. Miller centered around the seizure of property owned by a German company during World War I under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The Alien Property Custodian of the United States had seized assets from Behn, Meyer & Co., which was incorporated in London but controlled by Germans and conducted business primarily in Asia. After WWI ended, Behn, Meyer sought to recover its property arguing that it was not an "enemy" within meaning of Trading with Enemy Act as it was incorporated in a neutral country (UK). However, the court ruled against them stating that despite being registered in England; their primary place of business and control were located within enemy territory (Germany), thus making them subject to asset seizures under wartime laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Behn, Meyer & Company, Limited v. Miller, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to allow the Alien Property Custodian to seize property from a neutral party during wartime was unjust and without legal precedent. He contended that there were no laws or treaties in place at the time of seizure which would have allowed such an action against a company based in Switzerland—a country not involved in World War I. Furthermore, he pointed out that even if such laws had existed, they should not be applied retroactively as it violates principles of fairness and justice. He also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "enemy" under Trading with Enemy Act; according to him this term did not extend to neutrals or allies but only those directly engaged in hostilities against U.S.. Therefore he believed Behn Meyer & Co., being Swiss-based firm was wrongly classified as enemy-owned property leading its wrongful confiscation by U.S government.