In the case of Cynthia Waters, et al. v. Cheryl R. Churchill, et al., 1993, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws in Maine. The plaintiffs were siblings who had inherited their father's estate but found themselves embroiled in a legal battle with their stepmother (Churchill) over certain properties that they believed should be part of their inheritance based on state law at the time of his death. However, Churchill argued that she was entitled to these properties as per her husband's will which left everything to her if he predeceased her mother-in-law or within six months after his mother-in-law’s death. The court ruled in favor of Churchill stating that it is not unconstitutional for states to retroactively apply changes made to probate laws regarding surviving spouses' elective shares even when those changes affect vested rights because such application does not violate due process clause nor constitute an impermissible taking under Fifth Amendment takings clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Waters v. Churchill, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately protect public employees' First Amendment rights. The dissenters believed that employers should not be allowed to fire or discipline employees based on what they believe an employee said, without first conducting a thorough investigation into whether those statements were actually made and in what context. They contended that this could lead to abuses of power where employers might punish employees based on rumors or misunderstandings rather than verified facts. Furthermore, they expressed concern about how this ruling would impact whistleblowers who often rely on their free speech rights to expose wrongdoing within organizations.