In the case of United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc., 1965, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and compensation for land taken by the government under eminent domain. The federal government had seized a piece of land owned by Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc., to build an air force base during World War II. After the war ended, instead of returning it back to its original owners as promised initially, they decided to keep it permanently for public use. This led Anthony Grace & Sons to sue for just compensation based on post-war value rather than wartime value which was significantly lower due to economic conditions at that time caused by war efforts. The court ruled in favor of Anthony Grace & Sons stating that when property is taken under eminent domain and then later declared surplus (no longer needed), if there's no provision in law allowing return or repurchase right within reasonable time period after cessation of hostilities or emergency situation causing seizure; then owner should be compensated based on fair market value at date when decision not-to-return becomes final.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc., Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 3(a) of the War Powers Act. He argued that this provision was not intended to allow government contractors to be sued in any jurisdiction where they do business but rather only in jurisdictions where a substantial part of their property is located or where they are incorporated. The majority's broad reading, he contended, would lead to unfair and unpredictable results as it would expose contractors to litigation in potentially every district across the country. Furthermore, he believed that such an expansive interpretation was inconsistent with Congress' intent when passing this legislation during World War II - a time when national unity and efficiency were paramount concerns.