In the case of Zittman v. McGrath, Attorney General, Successor to the Alien Property Custodian in 1950, a group of German nationals sought to recover assets seized by the U.S. government during World War II under the Trading with Enemy Act (TWEA). The plaintiffs argued that their property was wrongfully taken as they were not enemies but victims of Nazi persecution who had fled Germany for safety. They also claimed that TWEA did not apply since America was not at war when their properties were confiscated. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that TWEA applied because Congress had declared a state of national emergency and authorized seizure even before formal declaration of war. Furthermore, it held that whether or not these individuals were persecuted in Germany is irrelevant under this law; what mattered was their nationality at time of confiscation which made them "enemies" within meaning and purpose of TWEA.

In the dissenting opinion for Zittman v. McGrath, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow the U.S. government to seize property from German nationals during World War II was unconstitutional and violated international law principles. The dissenting justices believed that such actions were only permissible if a state of war existed between two countries, which they contended did not exist at the time of seizure in this case as Congress had not formally declared war on Germany until after these seizures took place. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "enemy" under Trading With Enemy Act (TWEA), arguing that it should be limited to those residing within enemy territory or actively aiding enemy efforts rather than broadly including all nationals of an enemy country regardless their location or activities. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential negative impacts on foreign relations and warned against setting a dangerous precedent where personal liberties could be infringed upon without due process based on nationality alone.