In the 1956 case of Brownell, Attorney General, Successor to The Alien Property Custodian v. Chase National Bank of New York, Trustee et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over property seized during World War II under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The property in question was owned by a German national who had died and left it to his American relatives. After seizing this inheritance as enemy-owned property during wartime, the government argued that they were entitled to keep it even after peace was declared because its original owner had been an enemy alien at death. However, Chase National Bank acting as trustee for these heirs contested this claim. The court sided with Chase National Bank and held that once peace is restored following war-time seizure of such properties from enemies or their nationals; those properties should be returned if possible or compensation provided where return isn't feasible - regardless of whether said individuals are still considered "enemies" post-war due to nationality at time of death.

In the dissenting opinion for Brownell v. Chase National Bank of New York, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with both international law and previous Supreme Court rulings. He contended that under international law, a nation has the right to seize enemy property within its borders during times of war, but not after peace has been declared unless there is explicit statutory authorization. In this case, he believed such authorization was lacking because Congress had not clearly expressed an intent to allow post-war seizures when it passed the Trading with The Enemy Act in 1917. Furthermore, he pointed out that prior Supreme Court decisions had established a presumption against retroactivity in statutes unless Congress explicitly provided otherwise - something which again did not occur here according to him. Therefore, he concluded that since neither international law nor legislative history supported post-war seizure of enemy assets without clear Congressional approval; hence ruling should have favored Chase National Bank.