In the case of United States Trust Company of New York, Ancillary Administrator of Wesche v. Miller, as Alien Property Custodian (1922), the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a German national's property in America could be seized by the U.S government during World War I under the Trading with Enemy Act. The German national had died before America entered into WWI and left his estate to his two daughters who were also German nationals residing in Germany at that time. The court ruled that although one daughter had become an American citizen through marriage after her father's death but before America entered into war, she was not entitled to receive her inheritance because it would indirectly benefit an enemy country since she lived there with her husband who remained a German citizen throughout WWI. This decision upheld broad governmental powers during times of war and affirmed its right to seize enemy-owned property within its borders.

In the dissenting opinion for United States Trust Company of New York v. Miller, Justice Holmes argued that the Alien Property Custodian did not have a right to seize property from an enemy during wartime unless it was explicitly used to aid in war efforts. He contended that this interpretation was consistent with historical precedent and international law principles. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that Congress had granted such broad powers to the Alien Property Custodian under Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917. Instead, he believed that any ambiguity in legislation should be resolved against forfeiture because seizure of private property is a severe penalty which should only occur when clearly authorized by law. Thus, according to him, since there were no clear indications in either domestic or international laws supporting such seizures without explicit proof of aiding enemy activities during war times; therefore these actions were unjustified.