In the United States v. General Motors Corp case of 1944, the U.S. government seized a warehouse owned by General Motors (GM) during World War II under its war powers authority to store defense materials. GM sued for compensation and won in lower courts on the grounds that it was entitled to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which states that private property cannot be taken for public use without fair payment. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions, ruling in favor of the government. The court held that while GM was indeed entitled to some form of compensation due to governmental occupation and use of its property, this did not equate with full market value as if there had been an outright taking or condemnation of property rights. Instead, they ruled that GM should receive reasonable rental value for their premises during its period of occupancy by the military - essentially treating it as a landlord-tenant relationship rather than an outright seizure or purchase situation.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. General Motors Corp, it was argued that the government should not be allowed to seize property without providing just compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that this principle applied even during times of war and national emergency, such as World War II when this case took place. They contended that while Congress had authorized certain types of property seizures under its war powers, it did not give blanket approval for all forms of seizure without compensation. Therefore, they felt that General Motors Corporation should have been compensated for its leased warehouses taken over by the government during wartime operations. This view emphasized a strict interpretation of constitutional rights and protections against governmental intrusion into private property rights.