In the 1922 case of Omnia Commercial Company, Inc. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government over a contract dispute with Omnia Commercial Co., which had contracted to buy steel plates from American Rolling Mill Co (ARMCO). However, during World War I, ARMCO was compelled by the government to dedicate its entire production capacity towards war efforts under threat of seizure. This prevented them from fulfilling their contract with Omnia who sued for damages on grounds that this constituted a breach of Fifth Amendment rights against taking private property without just compensation. The court held that while it sympathized with Omnia's situation and recognized potential financial loss due to inability to fulfill contracts as an unfortunate consequence of war measures taken by governments worldwide; such losses were not considered 'property' within constitutional purview nor did they constitute a 'taking'. Therefore no compensation was warranted.

In the dissenting opinion for OMNIA Commercial Company, Inc., v. United States (1922), Justice McReynolds argued that the government's actions in this case constituted a breach of contract and should be held accountable. He disagreed with the majority's view that war necessity justified the government’s commandeering of a private company’s steel supply, which was originally contracted to another party (OMNIA). According to him, no such emergency existed at that time as there were other sources from where steel could have been procured without violating existing contracts. Moreover, he emphasized on upholding sanctity of contracts and believed it was not within governmental power to alter or abrogate them unless explicitly stated by law or under extreme circumstances - neither applicable here according to him. Thus, he opined that OMNIA should receive compensation for its losses due to this breach.