In the case of Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Tafoya, Chairman, et al., 1925, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fidelity and Deposit Company. The dispute centered around a bond issued by Fidelity to cover any default on contracts made by a construction company with New Mexico's State Highway Commission. When the construction company defaulted on its obligations, both unpaid material suppliers and laborers sought compensation from this bond under state law provisions that protected them in such situations. However, these laws were enacted after the bond was issued. The Supreme Court held that applying these new laws retroactively would violate contract clause protections as it would significantly alter contractual agreements already in place without consent from all parties involved. Therefore, only those claims which could have been anticipated at the time when the original agreement was made (i.e., between Fidelity and New Mexico's State Highway Commission) could be validly enforced against this surety bond.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Tafoya, Chairman, et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New Mexico statute requiring foreign corporations to appoint an agent within the state for service of process was incorrect. The dissent contended that this requirement violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by forcing companies to submit themselves to jurisdiction in states where they may not have significant contacts or business operations. Furthermore, it was suggested that such laws could potentially discourage interstate commerce by imposing burdensome requirements on out-of-state businesses. Therefore, according to this view, these types of statutes should be struck down as unconstitutional intrusions on corporate freedom and economic activity across state lines.