In the case of Sutherland, Alien Property Custodian v. Mayer et al., 1925, the United States Supreme Court ruled that an enemy alien could not recover property seized during World War I under the Trading with the Enemy Act unless they had been residing in America at least three months prior to war declaration. The plaintiff, a German citizen who owned shares in American corporations and bonds of American municipalities and railroads before WWI broke out, sued for recovery after his assets were confiscated by Charles J. Sutherland as Alien Property Custodian. However, he was denied because he did not meet residency requirements outlined in Section 9(a) of the Trading with Enemy Act which states that only those enemy aliens who have resided within U.S for at least three months immediately preceding outbreak of war can claim their properties back.

In the dissenting opinion for Sutherland, Alien Property Custodian, v. Mayer et al., Justice Holmes argued that the Trading with the Enemy Act did not authorize the seizure of property owned by American citizens who were residing in enemy territory during World War I. He contended that such an interpretation was inconsistent with both common law principles and international law norms regarding nationality and domicile. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority's assertion that Congress intended to punish these individuals for their decision to remain in enemy territory during wartime. Instead, he believed that Congress only sought to prevent them from using their property against U.S interests while they were living under enemy control. Therefore, according to Justice Holmes' view, since Mr.Mayer had returned back home after war ended and demonstrated his loyalty towards United States by serving in its army previously; it would be unjustified if his property is still considered as "enemy-owned" just because he happened to reside abroad at a time when war broke out between US and Germany.