The U.S. Supreme Court case Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R.A. Gray & Co., 1983, revolved around the constitutionality of a provision in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The provision required employers who terminated their pension plans to pay a proportionate share of "unfunded vested benefits" to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which is responsible for insuring private-sector defined-benefit pension plans in America. R.A Gray & Company argued that this retroactive liability was unconstitutional as it violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court upheld ERISA's provisions and ruled against R.A Gray & Company by stating that Congress had acted rationally and responsibly when creating these rules to address an important public issue - protecting employees' pensions from sudden termination without adequate funding. The court also noted that companies were given ample time after enactment before being held liable for payments, thus negating any claims of unfair surprise or lack of due process.

In the dissenting opinion for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R.A Gray & Co., Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist, argued that the retroactive application of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA) was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed that it violated due process rights because it imposed severe financial liability on employers without providing them with prior notice or an opportunity to adjust their conduct accordingly. They also disagreed with the majority's view that Congress had a rational legislative purpose in applying MPPAA retroactively as they felt there was no evidence to suggest this would prevent employer withdrawals from pension plans or protect plan participants and beneficiaries better than prospective legislation could have done.