In the 1947 case Clark, Attorney General, as Successor to the Alien Property Custodian v. Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, A.G., the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property seized during World War II under the Trading with Enemy Act. The plaintiff was Uebersee Finanz-Korporation (UFC), a Swiss corporation that owned shares in an American company which were confiscated by the US government due to UFC's alleged affiliation with Germany - an enemy nation at that time. UFC argued it was not affiliated with any enemy country and sought recovery of its assets. However, based on evidence presented showing significant German influence over UFC’s operations and decision-making processes during wartime years, including control over board appointments and financial transactions; Justice Stanley Reed delivered majority opinion upholding seizure of assets stating that mere legal title does not determine whether one is an 'enemy' within meaning of law but rather actual control or influence matters more for such determination.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Clark, Attorney General, as Successor to The Alien Property Custodian v. Uebersee Finanz-Korporation A.G., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of international law and equity. He contended that it was not within Congress' intent or power to confiscate property without providing just compensation. Furthermore, he believed that this ruling would set a dangerous precedent by allowing governments to seize assets arbitrarily under the guise of wartime necessity. This could potentially lead to misuse and abuse of such powers in future conflicts. Therefore, he disagreed with his colleagues' interpretation and application of both domestic legislation (Trading with Enemy Act) and international norms regarding enemy property rights during war times.