In the United States v. Goltra et al., Executor, 1940 case, the Supreme Court examined whether a contract between the U.S. government and a private company for river transportation services could be terminated unilaterally by Congress without breaching contractual obligations or violating constitutional rights. The court ruled in favor of the U.S. government, stating that it had not breached its contract with Goltra's barge line because there was no explicit promise to continue business indefinitely nor any clause preventing termination if deemed necessary for public interest. The decision also highlighted that even though contracts are protected under Fifth Amendment from being impaired by legislation, this protection does not extend to agreements with federal government as they inherently carry risk of policy changes due to sovereignty principle - meaning Congress retains power over such contracts and can alter them when required for national good. Furthermore, it emphasized on doctrine of sovereign immunity which states that federal government cannot be sued without its consent; hence claimants were unable to seek damages against alleged breach.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Goltra et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed the federal government to seize and sell property owned by a private company, despite its bankruptcy status. He argued that this action was unconstitutional as it violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. According to him, seizing and selling assets of an insolvent debtor without providing adequate notice or opportunity for hearing is fundamentally unfair and unjust. Furthermore, he contended that such actions undermine confidence in judicial proceedings and could potentially discourage future business ventures due to fear of arbitrary governmental interference. Therefore, he believed that creditors should have been given priority over government claims in bankruptcy cases.