In the 1930 case Klein, Former Administratrix, et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S., upholding a lower court's decision that denied compensation to an estate for property seized during World War I under the Trading with Enemy Act. The plaintiff argued that her late husband’s property was wrongfully confiscated because he had not been properly classified as an enemy alien at his death and therefore should be compensated by the government for this seizure. However, it was determined that Mr. Klein had died while residing in Germany during WWI and thus met criteria as an "enemy" under wartime law despite having initiated naturalization proceedings prior to his death but never completing them due to illness and eventual demise.

In the dissenting opinion for Klein, Former Administratrix, et al. v. United States (1930), Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Federal Control Act and its amendments. He contended that Congress intended to provide compensation for all injuries sustained by employees during their employment under federal control, not just those directly caused by negligence or fault on part of government agents. This would include injuries resulting from risks inherent in the nature of work itself or conditions under which it must be performed - such as Mrs.Klein’s husband’s death due to pneumonia after working in wet clothes at his post office job during a severe winter storm without heat provided by his employer- even if there is no specific act of negligence attributable to any particular individual agent acting on behalf of Government . The justice believed this broader interpretation better aligned with Congress' intent when passing these laws: protecting workers and providing them with adequate compensation should they suffer harm while serving under federal control.