In the case of Franconia Associates v. United States, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of farmers who had taken out loans from the federal government under a program designed to encourage rural housing development. The farmers argued that they should be allowed to prepay their loans without penalty and thereby escape certain restrictions on how they could use their property. The government contended that legislation passed by Congress in 1979 and 1980 barred such prepayments. However, Justice David Souter wrote for an eight-member majority that those laws did not apply retroactively to loans made before they were enacted. Therefore, he concluded that borrowers retained their contractual right to prepay at any time.

In the dissenting opinion for Franconia Associates v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the prepayment provision in Section 515 housing program contracts contradicted Congress' intent and created an unjust windfall for borrowers at taxpayers’ expense. The dissent emphasized that these contracts were not standard commercial agreements but rather part of a federal assistance program aimed to provide affordable rural housing. It was contended that allowing borrowers to prepay their loans without fulfilling their low-income use commitments undermined this objective by enabling them to convert properties into higher-rent units sooner than intended by Congress. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view on accrual date of claims under Tucker Act, arguing instead that claims accrued when government repudiated its alleged obligation i.e., when it refused prepayment requests before enactment of Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act (ELIHPA) or Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act (LIHPRHA). They believed this interpretation aligned more closely with contract law principles and prevented claimants from manipulating limitations period through strategic timing of their lawsuits.