In Nortz v. United States, the Supreme Court examined whether a reduction in gold content of currency by Congress violated the Fifth Amendment's clause against private property being taken for public use without just compensation. The plaintiff, Mr. Nortz, had gold certificates which he exchanged for new notes after Congress passed legislation reducing the amount of gold each dollar represented and prohibiting private ownership of monetary gold. He claimed this amounted to a taking as his new notes were worth less than his old ones due to their reduced purchasing power caused by inflation following devaluation. The court ruled unanimously against him stating that while there was indeed a loss suffered by Mr. Nortz due to depreciation in value of money received from exchange, it did not constitute a 'taking' within meaning of Fifth Amendment since no specific property right was appropriated for government or public use but rather an incidental result arising from lawful governmental action.

In the dissenting opinion for Nortz v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's ruling that a gold clause in a bond contract could be invalidated by Congress without violating Fifth Amendment protections against property seizure without just compensation. He argued that this decision effectively allowed Congress to abrogate contracts at will and destroy property rights, undermining fundamental principles of justice and fairness. Furthermore, he contended that the government had not provided sufficient justification for its actions; it was not facing an emergency situation or acting to protect public welfare but rather seeking financial advantage. In his view, such behavior constituted an abuse of power incompatible with constitutional guarantees and threatened to erode public confidence in governmental integrity and contractual obligations.