In the United States v. Pfitsch case of 1920, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue related to wartime contracts and their termination. The U.S government had entered into a contract with Mr. Pfitsch for his services during World War I, but terminated it after the war ended before its stipulated expiration date without paying him in full as per terms of the agreement. Mr.Pfitsch sued for breach of contract seeking compensation for lost wages from early termination. The court held that under Section 10 of Act June 15,1917 (40 Stat at L., chap 30), which provided that any such contract may be cancelled by government upon giving thirty days' notice in writing and payment to contractor just compensation; if parties cannot agree upon what is just compensation then amount shall be determined by Secretary who shall certify same to Comptroller General whose decision thereon shall be final and conclusive on all officers of Government. However, since no provision was made regarding judicial review or appeal process against this administrative determination within legislation itself; hence it was deemed unconstitutional due to violation Fifth Amendment's guaranteeing right not being deprived property without due process law.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Pfitsch, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on an overly broad interpretation of espionage laws was unjust and potentially dangerous. The justice contended that while it is important to protect national security, this should not come at the expense of individual liberties or due process rights. They believed that Pfitsch's actions did not constitute spying as defined by law because he had no intention of harming U.S interests or aiding its enemies; rather, his actions were driven by personal motives unrelated to any potential harm to national security. Furthermore, they warned against setting a precedent where individuals could be convicted for relatively innocuous acts simply because they might theoretically pose some risk to national security in certain circumstances. This kind of expansive interpretation could lead to abuses and miscarriages of justice if left unchecked.