The U.S. Supreme Court case Woodson, Alien Property Custodian, et al. v. Deutsche Gold Und Silber Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessle (1933) revolved around the issue of property rights and wartime reparations following World War I. The German company Deutsche Gold Und Silber Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessle sought to recover assets seized by the United States during WWI under the Trading with Enemy Act as part of war reparations; these assets were held in trust by an appointed Alien Property Custodian named Woodson. However, the court ruled against Deutsche Gold Und Silber Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessle stating that they had no legal standing to claim those properties because it was dissolved after WWI and did not exist at the time when Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing return of enemy-owned property in 1928.

In the dissenting opinion for Woodson v. Deutsche Gold Und Silber Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessle, Justice McReynolds expressed his disagreement with the majority's decision to allow a German corporation to recover property seized during World War I by the U.S. government under the Trading with Enemy Act. He argued that this ruling contradicted previous decisions and interpretations of international law which held that enemy aliens had no standing in court during times of war. Furthermore, he contended that allowing such claims would undermine national security efforts by providing financial resources to potential enemies in wartime situations. Justice McReynolds also criticized what he saw as an overly broad interpretation of Congress' intent when it passed amendments to the Trading with Enemy Act after World War I ended, arguing these changes were meant only for American citizens who had their property wrongly confiscated, not foreign entities or individuals.