In the 1916 case of Hamer et al. v. New York Railways Company et al., the Supreme Court dealt with issues related to bankruptcy and corporate reorganization. The plaintiffs, bondholders in a railway company undergoing financial restructuring, argued that their rights were being violated by the proposed plan for reorganization which would reduce their interest rates and extend repayment periods without their consent. They claimed this was an unconstitutional impairment of contract obligations under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed with these arguments and upheld lower court decisions approving the plan for reorganization as it did not violate any constitutional provisions or laws regarding bankruptcy proceedings. The court held that while creditors have certain rights during bankruptcy proceedings, they do not have absolute control over how a debtor's assets are distributed or debts repaid; rather such matters should be determined through equitable principles considering all parties involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Hamer et al. v. New York Railways Company et al., Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law limiting work hours was flawed because it did not sufficiently consider economic realities and individual liberties. He contended that such laws should be evaluated based on whether they are reasonable, rather than simply assuming their validity due to public health concerns or other justifications provided by lawmakers. In this case, he believed there was no clear evidence showing harm from longer work hours in street railway companies, making the law arbitrary and unreasonable interference with freedom of contract between employers and employees. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on precedents involving dangerous occupations like mining as irrelevant since working conditions in those industries were significantly different from those in railways operation.