In the case of Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, Trustee (1937), the Supreme Court examined whether a state law that reduced teachers' salaries due to budget constraints violated contractual obligations under the Contract Clause of the Constitution. The court ruled in favor of Brand, concluding that states have an inherent right to modify their own contracts when it serves a significant and legitimate public purpose, such as addressing fiscal emergencies or protecting public welfare. In this instance, Indiana's decision to reduce teacher salaries was deemed necessary for maintaining its educational system during economic hardship and did not violate any constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring teachers in public schools to take an oath of allegiance was misguided. He believed that such oaths were not only unnecessary but also potentially harmful, as they could be used as tools of political oppression and discrimination against those with differing views or beliefs. Furthermore, he contended that this requirement violated the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of religion by forcing individuals to express certain beliefs or face punishment. He maintained that it is not within the power of government to compel its citizens into expressing loyalty through prescribed affirmations under threat of losing their jobs if they refuse.