In the 1951 case of Guessefeldt v. McGrath, Attorney General, Successor to the Alien Property Custodian et al., Paul Guessefeldt, a German national residing in China during World War II and later interned by Japanese forces there, claimed ownership over certain properties seized by the U.S government under Trading with Enemy Act. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that he was an enemy within meaning of this act as he resided in territory occupied or controlled by nations at war with United States during WWII. Therefore his property could be legally confiscated by US authorities despite his claim that he was not personally hostile towards America nor did any action supporting Axis powers.

In the dissenting opinion for Guessefeldt v. McGrath, Justice Jackson argued that the majority's decision to allow a German national to recover property seized by the U.S. government during World War II was inconsistent with previous rulings and international law principles. He contended that it was inappropriate for courts to interfere in matters of foreign policy, which should be left solely within the purview of Congress and the President. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential ramifications on future wartime seizures if individuals could easily reclaim confiscated assets post-war without any consideration given to their nationality or allegiance during conflict times. In his view, this ruling undermined both domestic laws regarding enemy property as well as international norms governing warfare conduct.