In the case of Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States (1999), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government, stating that it did not breach its contract with Mobil and Marathon Oil companies by imposing a windfall profit tax on them. The oil companies had entered into contracts with the federal government to lease offshore drilling sites under certain terms including payment obligations such as royalties based on production value or quantity produced. However, after Congress enacted a new law introducing an additional "windfall profit tax" on oil extraction due to high prices during 1970s energy crisis, these firms argued this was contrary to their contractual agreements and sought refunds for taxes paid plus interest amounting over $156 million combined. The court held that since there were no specific provisions within their contracts protecting against future taxation changes nor any explicit language indicating exemption from such taxes; therefore they could not claim damages for alleged breach of contract.

In the dissenting opinion for Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States, Justice Breyer argued that the majority's interpretation of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) was incorrect. He believed that Congress intended to provide oil companies with a tax credit for royalties paid on offshore drilling leases as an incentive to explore and develop these areas. The majority's decision not to allow this credit would discourage such exploration and development, contrary to congressional intent. Furthermore, he disagreed with their conclusion that Mobil had received a "windfall" from its lease agreement with the government; rather, he saw it as compensation for significant financial risks taken by Mobil in exploring unproven territories under uncertain market conditions.