The U.S. Supreme Court case J.W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Company v. United States in 1920 revolved around the issue of whether a company could claim damages from the government for goods that were requisitioned during World War I but not used until after the war had ended. The plaintiff, J.W. Goldsmith Jr.-Grant Company, argued that they should be compensated at post-war prices since their goods were used after hostilities ceased while the defendant, United States Government contended it was only liable to pay wartime prices as per contract terms and conditions set by War Industries Board (WIB). The court ruled in favor of the government stating that WIB's pricing regulations applied regardless of when materials were actually utilized because these rules aimed to prevent profiteering during times of national emergency such as war.

In the dissenting opinion for J.W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Company v. United States, Justice Holmes argued that the government did not have a right to seize property without providing just compensation under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. He believed that this principle should apply even during times of war and emergency situations like World War I when this case was decided. The majority had ruled in favor of allowing seizure as part of wartime powers granted by Congress to President Wilson but Holmes disagreed with their interpretation, stating it went against fundamental constitutional rights regarding private property ownership and due process protections.