In the case of Cummings, Attorney General, et al. v. Deutsche Bank und Discontogesellschaft (1936), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Deutsche Bank und Discontogesellschaft. The bank had purchased bonds issued by a railroad company that later defaulted on its payments and was subsequently taken over by the federal government during World War I under the Federal Control Act. After the war ended, Congress passed legislation to compensate bondholders for their losses but excluded alien enemies from receiving any compensation; this included German-owned banks like Deutsche Bank und Discontogesellschaft due to Germany's role as an enemy in WWI. The bank sued for discrimination based on nationality and won at both district court level and appeals court level before reaching Supreme Court where it also emerged victorious with a 5-4 decision ruling that excluding alien enemies from compensation was unconstitutional because it violated Fifth Amendment rights against taking property without just compensation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cummings, Attorney General, et al. v. Deutsche Bank und Discontogesellschaft argued that the majority's decision to allow a foreign corporation to sue for damages was inconsistent with previous rulings and could potentially undermine national sovereignty. The dissenters believed that allowing such lawsuits would open up American courts to an influx of cases from foreign entities seeking compensation for perceived wrongs committed by U.S government officials or policies. They also expressed concern about the potential implications this ruling might have on international relations and diplomacy, as it essentially allowed a private entity to challenge governmental actions in court rather than through diplomatic channels.