The United States Supreme Court case, UNITED STATES v. SECURITY INDUSTRIAL BANK et al., 1982, centered around the issue of whether a law could retroactively affect property rights without violating the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 allowed debtors to void liens on certain personal property if they filed for bankruptcy; however, this provision was not in place when Security Industrial Bank extended credit to several customers who later declared bankruptcy. The bank argued that applying this provision retroactively would violate their due process rights by depriving them of their previously established security interests without compensation. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled in favor of Security Industrial Bank stating that Congress did not clearly express an intent for the lien-voiding provisions to apply retroactively and thus it should not be interpreted as such.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Security Industrial Bank et al., Justice O'Connor, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code was incorrect. They contended that Congress intended to allow debtors to avoid liens on tools of their trade or professionally prescribed health aids even if those items were purchased with credit and subject to a purchase money security interest (PMSI). The dissent pointed out that this interpretation is consistent with both legislative history and policy considerations underlying bankruptcy law. They believed it would be unfair for creditors who extended credit in exchange for a PMSI on essential goods could end up better off than other unsecured creditors in case of debtor’s bankruptcy. This view also emphasized how such an outcome contradicts one major goal of bankruptcy law - equitable distribution among creditors.