In the case of Moya et ux. v. DeBaca, DBA DeBaca & Co. Credit & Collection Agency, et al., 1968, the plaintiffs were a married couple who alleged that their constitutional rights had been violated by the defendants' actions in repossessing their car without due process of law and for an unlawful debt collection practice. The Moyas claimed that they were not given proper notice or opportunity to be heard before their vehicle was seized as part of a debt collection effort by DeBaca & Co., which they argued constituted state action because it was done under color of New Mexico's repossession statute. The Supreme Court held that private parties could not be sued under Section 1983 unless there is significant involvement from the state or its agents in enforcing discriminatory practices; mere approval or acquiescence by the State is insufficient to constitute "state action". Therefore, since no such involvement existed here with respect to either defendant (the credit agency and its attorney), both defendants’ motions for summary judgment on this issue should have been granted.

In the dissenting opinion for Moya et ux. v. Debaca, DBA Debaca & Co. Credit & Collection Agency, et al., 1968, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New Mexico law allowing wage garnishment without prior notice or hearing was in violation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that such laws could lead to abuse and exploitation by creditors who might seize wages without giving debtors an opportunity to contest their claims or seek legal protection before their property is taken away from them. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how these practices disproportionately affected low-income individuals who rely on every paycheck for survival and may not have access to legal resources necessary for defending themselves against unjust wage seizures.