The U.S. Supreme Court case Orvis et al. v. Brownell, Attorney General, Successor to the Alien Property Custodian (1952) revolved around a dispute over property seized during World War II under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. The plaintiffs were American heirs of a German national who owned stock in an American company before his death in Germany in 1948; this stock had been confiscated by the U.S government during WWII due to its owner's enemy status at that time. After his death, these shares were claimed by both his American relatives and German ones as well as by other parties including tax authorities from different jurisdictions. The main issue was whether or not these stocks could be considered "property" within America and thus subject to seizure under wartime laws even though they belonged to someone residing outside of it when he died - which would also determine if they could then be reclaimed after war ended. In their decision, justices ruled against plaintiffs stating that such assets indeed fell under jurisdiction of United States law regardless where their original owners lived or died because they represented investments made into its economy hence partaking in benefits provided therein while potentially posing risks too especially during times like war when foreign interests might conflict with domestic ones.

In the dissenting opinion for Orvis et al. v. Brownell, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold the seizure of property belonging to American citizens who were residing in enemy territory during World War II was a violation of their constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that these individuals should not be punished simply because they happened to be living in an area controlled by forces hostile to the United States at a time when war broke out. They contended that such punishment amounted to guilt by association and violated principles of justice and fairness fundamental to American law and society. Furthermore, they expressed concern about setting a dangerous precedent where U.S citizens could lose their property without due process based on circumstances beyond their control.