In the 1951 case McGrath, Attorney General, Successor to the Alien Property Custodian v. Nagano, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Japanese citizen Takaichi Nagano who had his property seized during World War II under the Trading with Enemy Act. The government argued that since he was an enemy alien at war with America, they were justified in seizing his assets located within their jurisdiction. However, Nagano claimed that he was not given due process and therefore it violated his rights under Fifth Amendment of Constitution which guarantees everyone a fair trial before being deprived of life or liberty or property without due process of law. The court agreed with him stating that even though he is an enemy alien residing outside United States still has constitutional right to be heard before seizure and liquidation of his properties by government officials.

In the dissenting opinion for McGrath v. Nagano, Justice Frankfurter argued that due process was violated when the Alien Property Custodian seized property without providing a hearing or notice to its owners. He believed that such actions were unconstitutional and went against fundamental principles of fairness in American law. The majority's decision, he contended, allowed an executive agency to seize private property based on mere suspicion rather than concrete evidence of wrongdoing - a dangerous precedent which could lead to abuses of power. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of the Trading With the Enemy Act as allowing such seizures; instead arguing it should be read in light of constitutional protections for individual rights and liberties. In his view, this case represented a serious erosion of these safeguards under pressure from national security concerns during wartime.