The Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum v. Green case in 1914 revolved around a dispute over an insurance policy. The plaintiff, Mr. Green, was a member of the defendant organization (the Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum), which provided life insurance to its members as part of their membership benefits package. When Mr. Green became ill and unable to work, he stopped paying his dues but continued to pay his insurance premiums directly to the organization's headquarters instead of through his local council as required by organizational rules. After Mr.Green died, his wife filed for her husband’s death benefit claim but it was denied on grounds that he had not paid all necessary fees prior to death because they were sent directly rather than through local channels. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs.Green stating that since there was no explicit rule against direct payment and considering that these payments were accepted without any objection from the organization itself at time they were made; therefore it would be unjust for them now after accepting those payments during lifetime,to deny claims based on this technicality posthumously.

In the dissenting opinion for the Supreme Court case of Supreme Council of The Royal Arcanum v. Green, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Massachusetts law regulating fraternal benefit societies' ability to raise rates on existing members violated contract rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent contended that when individuals joined these societies and paid their dues, they entered into a contractual relationship with expectations about future benefits based on agreed-upon rates. By allowing states to interfere in this agreement and permit rate increases without member consent, it was believed that this undermined fundamental principles of contract law and individual liberty. Furthermore, there were concerns raised about potential abuses if states could arbitrarily alter private contracts in such ways.