In the case of Thomas F. Conroy v. Walter Aniskoff, Jr., et al., 1992, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting a provision in the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (SSCRA). The SSCRA protects servicemen from being sued while on active duty and for up to sixty days afterwards. In this particular case, a loan company initiated foreclosure proceedings against Walter Aniskoff while he was serving in Operation Desert Storm. The loan company argued that they were not required to ascertain whether or not Mr. Aniskoff was in military service before proceeding with foreclosure because there had been no communication from him regarding his status as per their interpretation of SSCRA's provisions. The court ruled unanimously in favor of Mr. Aniskoff stating that it is indeed incumbent upon creditors to determine if debtors are currently serving in military before initiating any legal action regardless of any communication or lack thereof from said debtor about their status under SSCRA protection rules.

In the dissenting opinion for Thomas F. Conroy v. Walter Aniskoff, Jr., et al., Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a provision in the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (SSCRA). The SSCRA was designed to protect active-duty military personnel from certain civil proceedings that could affect their rights while they are serving their country. In this case, it involved a loan default judgement against an active serviceman during his deployment overseas. The majority held that courts must assume military service affects one’s ability to defend oneself in court unless proven otherwise by creditors seeking judgments against them. However, Justice Scalia argued that such presumption is not explicitly stated in SSCRA and thus should not be inferred without clear legislative intent or evidence showing its necessity for protecting servicemen's rights effectively.