In the case of Ed Plaut, et ux., et al. v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., et al., 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not retroactively command federal courts to reopen final judgments in civil lawsuits. The plaintiffs had initially filed a securities fraud lawsuit against Spendthrift Farm and others which was dismissed by a district court due to expiration of the statute of limitations period as per Lampf Pleva rule set by Supreme Court earlier in 1991. However, later that year Congress passed legislation allowing such cases to be reinstated if they were dismissed for being time-barred under this new rule but would have been timely under old state law rules applicable at the time when those suits were filed originally. The plaintiffs sought to reinstate their case based on this new legislation but it was denied by lower courts leading them appeal before Supreme Court arguing that Congressional act is constitutional and should apply retrospectively. However, ruling with a majority vote (5-4), SCOTUS held that Article III section 1 of Constitution vests judicial power solely within judiciary branch thus prohibiting legislative interference into final judgments made by Courts thereby making Congressional act unconstitutional as applied here.

In the dissenting opinion for ED PLAUT, ET UX., et al. v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC., et al., Justice Stephen Breyer argued that Congress has the constitutional authority to change laws retroactively and apply them to cases already decided by lower courts. He disagreed with the majority's view that such a power infringes upon judicial independence or violates separation of powers principles. Instead, he contended that historical precedent supports Congressional authority in this area and emphasized its importance in ensuring justice is served when new information comes to light after a case has been decided. Furthermore, he expressed concern about limiting Congress' ability to correct perceived injustices through legislative action.