The Legal Tender Case, Juilliard v. Greenman, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1884. The case centered around the constitutionality of the Legal Tender Act of 1862, which authorized the issuance of paper money, known as "greenbacks," by the federal government. The Act was challenged by the plaintiff, Juilliard, who argued that the Act was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the taking of private property without just compensation. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the constitutionality of the Act. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite, held that the Act was a valid exercise of Congress' power to issue currency and that it did not violate the Fifth Amendment. The majority opinion also held that the Act was a valid exercise of Congress' power to regulate the value of money, and that the Act did not violate the Contract Clause of the Constitution. The dissent, written by Justice Stephen Field, argued that the Act was unconstitutional because it violated the Contract Clause and the Fifth Amendment. The dissent argued that the Act was an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, and that it violated the Contract Clause by impairing the obligation of contracts. The Legal Tender Case was a landmark decision that established the constitutionality of the Legal Tender Act of 1862 and affirmed Congress' power to issue currency and regulate the value of money. The decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has been a cornerstone of American monetary policy.

In the case of Juilliard v. Greenman, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether Congress had the power to pass a law that made United States notes legal tender for payment of debts. The majority opinion held that Congress did have this power and could make these notes legal tender in order to finance public debt during times of war or economic crisis. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion on two grounds: firstly, he argued that it violated Article I Section 10 Clause 1 of the Constitution which states “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”; secondly, he argued that even if such an act were constitutional it would be unwise because it would lead to inflationary pressures as more money is put into circulation without corresponding increases in goods available for purchase. Ultimately then Justice Field concluded by arguing against both the constitutionality and wisdom behind making US notes legal tender for payment of debts.