In the case of Zimmermann et al. v. Sutherland, Alien Property Custodian, et al., 1926, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a German corporation's property in America could be seized during World War I under the Trading with Enemy Act (TWEA). The plaintiffs were shareholders of a German company that owned stock in an American company; they argued that their shares should not have been confiscated as enemy-owned property because they personally were not enemies but neutrals residing in Switzerland. However, the court ruled against them stating that since Germany had control over their corporate entity during wartime and could potentially use it to its advantage against America, seizure was justified under TWEA. Therefore, even though individual shareholders might be neutral parties themselves and did not directly pose any threat to U.S national security interests during war times - if their associated corporation is domiciled within an enemy country then its assets are subject to confiscation by US authorities.

In the dissenting opinion for Zimmermann et al. v. Sutherland, Alien Property Custodian, et al., Justice Holmes argued that the Trading with the Enemy Act did not give power to seize property of a U.S citizen merely because they were in Germany during World War I. He believed it was unconstitutional and against natural justice to deprive an American citizen of their property without due process of law based on their location at a particular time. The majority's interpretation would mean any American who happened to be abroad during war could lose all their domestic assets without notice or opportunity for hearing which he found unacceptable and contrary to principles of fairness and justice.