The Supreme Court case Perry v. United States in 1934 revolved around the issue of whether Congress could alter the obligations of a contract, specifically U.S. government bonds, without breaching the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The plaintiff, John W. Perry, had purchased a $10,000 gold bond and later demanded payment in gold as stipulated by its terms when it matured; however due to changes in federal law during an economic crisis (the Gold Reserve Act), he was paid only in currency which was less valuable than gold at that time. Perry sued for breach of contract arguing that his property rights were violated under the Fifth Amendment because he did not receive full value for his bond as promised at purchase time. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against him but also held that while Congress has broad power over monetary policy and can even change contractual relationships if necessary for public good or welfare - such actions must still respect constitutional protections like due process rights. In essence this ruling affirmed both Congressional authority over money matters including altering contracts if needed yet also emphasized importance of upholding individual property rights within constitutional limits.

In the dissenting opinion for Perry v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that Congress did not have the authority to alter the obligations of contracts and thus could not change the terms of payment on government bonds from gold to paper currency. He maintained that this action was a violation of Fifth Amendment rights against deprivation of property without due process. Furthermore, he contended that it undermined public confidence in governmental promises and commitments by demonstrating an ability to renege on them at will. This decision, according to him, set a dangerous precedent where any contractual obligation could be altered or nullified by legislative fiat which would lead to uncertainty and instability in financial markets as well as other areas reliant upon contract law.