The Second Russian Insurance Company v. Miller, Alien Property Custodian case in 1924 revolved around the seizure of assets belonging to a Russian insurance company by the U.S. government during World War I under the Trading with Enemy Act. The U.S.'s Alien Property Custodian had taken over these assets after Russia's Bolshevik Revolution, arguing that since Russia was no longer an ally (having withdrawn from WWI and being under communist rule), its companies' properties were subject to seizure as enemy property. However, the Supreme Court ruled against this action stating that despite political changes in Russia, it did not make them an enemy according to international law or within context of Trading with Enemy Act because they didn't engage in hostilities against America nor allied themselves with Central Powers at war with America. Therefore, their properties shouldn't have been seized as "enemy" property.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Second Russian Insurance Company v. Miller, Alien Property Custodian, et al., 1924 argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of judicial power and a misinterpretation of legislative intent. The dissenters contended that Congress did not intend for the Trading with the Enemy Act to apply to corporations or properties located in countries with which America was not at war. They believed this interpretation violated principles of international law and could potentially lead to unnecessary conflicts with foreign nations. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that Russia had become an enemy country due to its political revolution; instead arguing it remained a friendly nation despite internal turmoil. In their view, seizing assets from companies based in such countries went beyond what Congress intended when passing legislation related to wartime asset control.