The U.S. Supreme Court case of Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, A.G., v. McGrath, Attorney General in 1951 involved the Swiss corporation Uebersee Finanz-Korporation (UFC) and its claim to recover assets seized by the United States during World War II under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The Alien Property Custodian had taken UFC's property on grounds that it was enemy-owned as a majority of its shares were held by German nationals who were considered enemies at that time. UFC argued they weren't an enemy company because their operations were entirely managed from Switzerland, a neutral country during WWII. However, the court ruled against UFC stating that ownership determined whether a company was an "enemy" under this act rather than control or location of operation. Therefore, since most shareholders were Germans (enemies), their assets could be legally seized despite being operated out of Switzerland.

In the dissenting opinion for Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, A.G., v. McGrath, Justice Jackson argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles and an intrusion into legislative territory. He contended that it was not within the Court's purview to determine whether or not a corporation could be considered an enemy under the Trading with Enemy Act; this determination should be left to Congress. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “enemy” as excluding corporations located in neutral countries but owned by residents of enemy nations. He asserted that such entities were indeed enemies because they provided financial support to hostile governments during wartime and thus posed threats to national security. Finally, he expressed concern about potential negative implications on foreign relations due to this ruling which might encourage other nations' courts also interpret their own laws in ways favoring their citizens over American interests.