The U.S. Supreme Court case Markham, Alien Property Custodian, et al. v. Cabell in 1945 involved a dispute over the ownership of shares in an American company that were originally owned by German nationals prior to World War II. The Alien Property Custodian (APC), a government office established during wartime to seize and manage enemy property, had taken control of these shares under the Trading with the Enemy Act after America's entry into war against Germany in 1941. Cabell claimed he was entitled to these shares as they were transferred to him before APC seized them; however, APC argued that this transfer was invalid because it occurred while America was at war with Germany and without obtaining necessary licenses from Treasury Department. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of APC stating that any transfers made without proper licensing are voided even if done before seizure by APC under Trading with Enemy Act provisions. This decision upheld federal government’s power during times of war and its ability to nullify transactions involving enemy-owned properties if not properly licensed.

In the dissenting opinion for Markham, Alien Property Custodian, et al. v. Cabell (1945), Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of Congress' intent in passing the Trading with the Enemy Act. He believed that this law was not intended to allow seizure of American citizens' property without due process or just compensation, even if they were living abroad during wartime and their assets had been frozen by foreign governments. The fact that these individuals could not access their own funds did not mean those funds should be considered "enemy-owned," as per his interpretation of the statute; rather it reflected an unfortunate consequence of war which did not justify violating constitutional rights. Furthermore, he contended that allowing such seizures would set a dangerous precedent for future government overreach under similar circumstances.