In the case of Riggs v. Del Drago et al., 1942, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a New York statute that allowed estate debts to be paid without first satisfying claims from legatees and devisees was in violation of federal law. The appellants argued that this state law contradicted section 124a of the Judicial Code which stipulates that all claims against an insolvent debtor's estate must be satisfied before any distribution is made to heirs or legatees. However, the court ruled unanimously in favor of Del Drago, upholding the validity of New York's statute under federal bankruptcy laws. The decision clarified that while federal law does establish certain requirements for debt repayment during bankruptcy proceedings, it does not supersede states' rights to determine how estates are distributed after death.

In the dissenting opinion for Riggs v. Del Drago, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the New York law allowing creditors to claim against an estate before it was distributed to beneficiaries contradicted traditional common law principles. He contended that this statute disrupted centuries of established legal precedent which held that specific legacies and devises were not liable for a decedent's debts unless explicitly stated in their will or if the estate’s residue was insufficient to cover these obligations. The majority ruling, according to him, undermined testamentary freedom by permitting state legislatures to alter or abolish fundamental rights related with property inheritance without clear justification. Therefore, he disagreed with the court's decision upholding this legislation as constitutional under the Tenth Amendment.