In the case of Regan, Secretary of The Treasury, et al. v. Wald et al., 1983, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a regulation imposed by President Jimmy Carter and continued under President Ronald Reagan that restricted travel to Cuba. This restriction was part of an economic embargo against Cuba in response to its alignment with the Soviet Union during the Cold War era. The plaintiffs argued that this violated their Fifth Amendment rights as it interfered with their freedom to travel without due process or justification for national security interests. However, the court ruled in favor of Regan (5-4), stating that such restrictions were within presidential power when dealing with foreign policy matters and did not violate constitutional rights because they served a legitimate government interest - namely protecting national security and promoting world peace.

In the dissenting opinion for Regan v. Wald, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's interpretation of the Trading with the Enemy Act was too broad and gave excessive power to the executive branch. He contended that Congress did not intend to give such sweeping authority when it passed this legislation during World War I. Furthermore, he believed that by upholding President Carter's restrictions on travel to Cuba, which were reinstated by President Reagan after a brief period of relaxation under President Ford, they were infringing upon Americans' right to international travel as part of their liberty protected by Due Process Clause in Fifth Amendment. In his view, these restrictions should be subject only to strict scrutiny review because they directly affect fundamental rights; however, he noted that even if rational basis review was used instead (as done by majority), government still failed to provide adequate justification for its policy.