The U.S. Supreme Court case Direction der Disconto-Gesellschaft v. United States Steel Corporation, Public Trustee, Egremont John Mills et al., in 1924 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of certain shares and bonds following World War I. The German bank Direction der Disconto-Gesellschaft claimed that it owned these assets before they were seized by the British government during the war under its Trading with Enemy Act. Afterward, these assets were sold to American investors including United States Steel Corporation and others (defendants). The plaintiff argued that this seizure was illegal under international law and sought to recover their property from defendants who bought them after being seized by Britain's public trustee. However, the court ruled against the German bank stating that it could not question or challenge actions taken by a foreign sovereign power within its own jurisdiction - in this case, Britain's wartime seizure of enemy properties. Furthermore, since Germany had signed Treaty of Versailles which ended WWI without any reservations about such seizures made during war time; thus implicitly accepting them as lawful acts done under exigencies of war; hence cannot now claim those transactions as unlawful.

In the dissenting opinion for Direction Der Disconto-Gesellschaft v. United States Steel Corporation, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of U.S. Steel Corporation and other defendants was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the plaintiff, a German bank, had been wrongfully denied its claim to bonds held by U.S. Steel as collateral for loans made before World War I because of an executive order issued during wartime under Trading with the Enemy Act which vested all enemy property in Alien Property Custodian who sold them later on public auction after war ended without giving any notice to original owner i.e., plaintiff here. The dissenters contended this action violated international law principles regarding treatment of enemy property during times of conflict and post-war settlements; they also questioned whether such broad powers should be granted to executive branch without explicit legislative approval or oversight from judiciary given potential abuses inherent therein. They further pointed out inconsistencies between current case and previous rulings where courts upheld rights of foreign creditors against arbitrary government actions even amidst national emergencies like wars thereby setting dangerous precedent undermining rule-of-law values central to American legal system if allowed unchallenged.