In the 1920 case of G.S. Willard Company et al. v. Palmer, as Attorney General of the United States, et al., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to wartime property seizure and compensation for losses incurred due to government action during World War I. The plaintiffs were American corporations that had their assets seized by the Alien Property Custodian under Trading with Enemy Act because they were owned by German nationals who were considered enemies during WWI. After peace was declared, these companies sought return of their properties or compensation for them from the U.S Government arguing that they should not be treated as enemy-owned since they are incorporated in America and have American citizens as directors and officers. The court ruled against them stating that a corporation's nationality is determined by its shareholders' citizenship rather than where it is incorporated or who manages it; thus if majority shares are held by an enemy national then such a company can be deemed 'enemy-owned'. It also clarified that once war ends, there’s no obligation on part of US government to return seized properties or provide any form of restitution unless specifically provided for in Treaty terms.

The dissenting opinion in the case of G.S. Willard Company et al. v. Palmer, as Attorney General of the United States, et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a provision allowing for price-fixing agreements between manufacturers and distributors was fundamentally flawed. The dissenters contended that such arrangements were inherently anti-competitive and thus violated antitrust laws designed to protect consumers from monopolistic practices. They further asserted that these types of agreements could lead to higher prices for consumers by eliminating competition among retailers selling identical products from the same manufacturer, which would ultimately harm consumer welfare rather than promote it as intended by Congress when passing legislation regulating commerce among states.