In the case of Rice v. Sanger, a dispute arose over an unpaid debt and its associated interest. The plaintiff, Rice, had loaned money to the defendant, Sanger. However, when it came time for repayment, there was disagreement about how much interest should be paid on top of the principal amount borrowed. According to New York law at that time (where both parties resided), any agreement for payment of compound interest was void unless it was made after the debt became due; however this rule did not apply if either party lived in another state or country where such agreements were legal. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sanger because he had moved from New York to Texas before making his promise to pay compound interest - even though he later returned back home. Therefore under federal law which governs interstate transactions like these (and allows such promises), his commitment stood valid despite being contrary to local laws in New York.

In the dissenting opinion for Rice v. Sanger, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Missouri law prohibiting abortion except to save a woman's life violated both state and federal constitutions. The dissenters believed that this law infringed on women’s rights by denying them access to safe and legal abortions, which they viewed as an essential aspect of their liberty and personal autonomy. They also contended that the statute was unconstitutionally vague because it did not clearly define what constituted a threat to a woman's life or health, leaving too much discretion in the hands of physicians who could face criminal charges for performing an abortion under uncertain circumstances. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s assertion that fetuses have personhood rights protected by law from conception onward; instead, they maintained that constitutional protections should apply only after birth.