In the United States v. Shimer case of 1960, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving mortgage insurance benefits under Section 204(g) of the National Housing Act. The respondent, Robert F. Shimer, had defaulted on his home loan which was insured by Federal Housing Administration (FHA). After foreclosure and sale of the property at a loss, both FHA and petitioner sought to recover from Shimer for deficiency judgment as per Pennsylvania law where property was located. However, Shimer argued that federal law preempted state laws in this context and he should not be liable for any further payments beyond surrendering his property. The Supreme Court held that while federal law did govern FHA-insured mortgages; it did not preclude recovery under state deficiency judgment laws unless they conflicted with specific provisions or objectives within federal statutes themselves. In this case no such conflict existed hence Mr.Shimer's liability could be pursued under Pennsylvania's deficiency judgement laws.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Shimer, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 107(a) of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act was incorrect and inconsistent with its legislative history. He contended that Congress intended to limit a veteran's liability under this section to only those cases where there is an actual loss suffered by the government due to default on loan payments. The majority’s ruling, he believed, would result in veterans being held liable even when no such losses occurred - something he felt was not within Congressional intent. Furthermore, Justice Harlan criticized the court for failing to consider other relevant sections of law which could have provided more context and clarity regarding Congress' intentions behind this provision.