The U.S. Supreme Court case Hicks, Alien Property Custodian, et al. v. Guinness et al., 1925 revolved around the issue of property rights during wartime and involved an interpretation of the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA). The Alien Property Custodian had seized shares in a brewery owned by British citizens during World War I under TWEA provisions that allowed for seizure of enemy-owned property within U.S borders. After the war ended, these British shareholders sued to regain their assets arguing that they were not "enemies" as defined by TWEA since Britain was an ally to America in WWI. The court ruled against them stating that while Britain was indeed an ally during WWI, it did not change their status as aliens under American law at the time when their properties were confiscated. Therefore, according to TWEA's definition which included all non-U.S citizens regardless of whether they belonged to allied or enemy nations - these individuals qualified as 'enemies'. Consequently, it upheld that seizure was lawful and denied recovery claims made by plaintiffs.

In the dissenting opinion for Hicks, Alien Property Custodian, et al. v. Guinness et al., Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to allow a British company to recover property seized during World War I was inconsistent with previous rulings and unjustified by law or policy. He contended that under the Trading with Enemy Act of 1917, all enemy-owned property in America was subject to seizure without compensation and could not be reclaimed after peace had been restored unless Congress expressly provided otherwise. In his view, this harsh rule reflected a legitimate wartime measure designed to deprive enemies of resources and deter future aggression rather than an arbitrary punishment or deprivation of rights. Therefore, he believed it should be upheld even if it resulted in hardship for individual claimants like Guinness who were caught up in its sweep through no fault of their own.