In the case of Hicks, Alien Property Custodian v. Poe et al., 1925, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a claimant could recover property that had been seized during World War I under the Trading With The Enemy Act. The plaintiff argued that they were entitled to their property as it was wrongfully confiscated by George R. Poe in his capacity as an alien property custodian appointed by President Woodrow Wilson. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, ruled against them stating that there is no right to sue federal officials for actions taken within their official capacities unless such rights are expressly granted by Congress - which wasn't done in this instance through the Trading With The Enemy Act.

In the dissenting opinion for Hicks v. Poe, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Trading with Enemy Act and its application to this case. They argued that Mrs. Poe was not an enemy within the meaning of the act because she had been living in America since before World War I began and had no intention of returning to Germany. The dissenting justices believed that her property should not have been seized as alien property simply because she was a German national who hadn't yet obtained American citizenship at war’s end. They contended that such an interpretation went beyond what Congress intended when it passed this law during wartime, which they saw as primarily aimed at preventing enemies from using their assets against U.S interests rather than punishing individuals based on nationality alone.