The U.S. Supreme Court case Brownell, Attorney General, Successor to the Alien Property Custodian v. Singer in 1953 revolved around a dispute over property seized during World War II under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. The plaintiff was an American citizen who had inherited property from her German father after his death in Germany during WWII; however, this inheritance was confiscated by the U.S government as "enemy-owned" assets due to its origin and timing. The court ruled that despite being an American citizen herself, since she acquired these properties while residing within enemy territory (Germany), they were subject to confiscation under wartime laws. This decision upheld that citizenship does not exempt one from such seizures if their assets are deemed 'enemy-owned'. It also emphasized on how international law allows for such actions during times of war even when it concerns citizens' private properties.

In the dissenting opinion for Brownell, Attorney General, Successor to The Alien Property Custodian v. Singer (1953), Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of international law and equity. He contended that the U.S government should not be allowed to seize property belonging to an American citizen simply because they had taken up residence in a foreign country during wartime - even if it was with an enemy nation. In his view, this amounted to punishing someone without trial or due process of law based on their place of residence rather than any proven disloyalty or criminal activity. Furthermore, he believed it set a dangerous precedent by allowing governments broad powers over private property rights under the guise of national security interests.