In the 1941 case United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation et al., the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether a contract between private corporations and foreign governments was subject to review by American courts. The dispute arose when several steel companies agreed to sell scrap iron to Japan, which led Congress to pass an embargo on such sales due to concerns about Japanese militarism. The steel companies argued that they had already entered into contracts before the embargo was enacted and sought compensation for their losses from breaking these contracts under Fifth Amendment protections against government seizure of property without just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States, stating that while international agreements made by private entities are generally respected under U.S law, they cannot supersede or conflict with public policy as determined by Congress. In this instance, national security interests outweighed any potential contractual obligations towards foreign nations held by private corporations.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation et al., Justice Roberts argued that the majority's decision to uphold President Roosevelt's executive order authorizing the Secretary of War and Navy to acquire any existing shipbuilding facilities was unconstitutional. He contended that Congress had not delegated such power to the President, nor could it do so without violating constitutional principles of separation of powers. Furthermore, he asserted that even if Congress had granted this authority, it would be an unlawful delegation because there were no standards or rules provided by which these acquisitions should be made or compensation determined. Therefore, according to Justice Roberts' dissenting view, both actions - acquisition and determination of just compensation - constituted legislative functions which cannot constitutionally be performed by either Executive or Judiciary branches.