Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. (2025) Affirmative Opinion in the Voice of Justice Alito

 

Supreme Court of the United States

Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al.

Opinion of the Court by the voice of Justice Alito

Delivered January 14, 2025

---

Today, this Court renders a decision of profound constitutional and societal importance. At issue is whether the foreclosure proceedings initiated by Alliant Credit Union against Mr. Zachary Moore—based on a mortgage loan derived from fiat currency—violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This case also raises broader questions about the legality of a monetary system that facilitates perpetual debt cycles through fiat currency and usury.

After careful consideration, we hold that the foreclosure proceedings, as applied to Mr. Moore, constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights to property and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Further, we find that the systemic exploitation inherent in the fiat currency system and its application to the facts of this case violate the foundational principles of justice enshrined in the Constitution.

I. The Constitutional Context

At the heart of this case lies a mortgage agreement secured by fiat currency—currency that is created without backing by tangible assets, such as gold or silver. Mr. Moore argues that this currency, lacking intrinsic value, fails to constitute valid consideration under contract law, thereby rendering his mortgage void ab initio. He further asserts that the foreclosure proceedings based on such a contract violate his rights to due process, equal protection, and protection from unjust enrichment.

The Constitution is clear on matters of monetary integrity and individual rights. Article I, Section 10 prohibits states from making "anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." This provision reflects the framers' intent to establish a monetary system grounded in tangible value, ensuring fairness and stability in economic transactions. Moreover, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments safeguard individuals from governmental deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

We cannot ignore the systemic exploitation facilitated by the fiat currency system, which imposes undue burdens on individuals like Mr. Moore. This system, compounded by the practice of usury, creates perpetual cycles of debt that are not only mathematically unsustainable but also morally indefensible.

II. Fiat Currency as Unconstitutional Consideration

The issue of consideration is foundational to the validity of contracts. A valid contract requires mutual exchange of value. However, fiat currency, by its very nature, is created out of nothing and lacks the tangible backing required by Article I, Section 10. This Court has long recognized the principle that invalid consideration undermines the enforceability of a contract. In Carpenter v. Longan (1872), we held that a mortgage is inseparable from the promissory note it secures. If the note is invalid, the mortgage is likewise void.

Here, Mr. Moore’s mortgage was based on fiat currency—a medium of exchange that contravenes constitutional intent and economic fairness. We conclude that such a contract, lacking valid consideration, cannot form the basis for lawful foreclosure proceedings.

III. Violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

The foreclosure proceedings also implicate Mr. Moore’s due process rights. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of property without due process of law, and the Fourteenth Amendment extends this protection to actions by state governments and their instrumentalities. Foreclosure is a significant deprivation of property that requires strict adherence to procedural and substantive fairness.

In this case, the foreclosure was initiated without addressing Mr. Moore’s valid challenge to the underlying mortgage. The lack of a meaningful hearing to contest the validity of the contract constitutes a violation of his due process rights. Further, the seizure of Mr. Moore’s home under a void contract amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property for private benefit, violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

IV. The Thirteenth Amendment and Economic Exploitation

The Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude extends to systems of economic exploitation that coerce individuals into perpetual labor for the benefit of others. The fiat currency system, when coupled with usury, forces borrowers into unrelenting cycles of debt repayment, effectively constituting economic servitude. Mr. Moore’s plight illustrates the oppressive nature of this system, which prioritizes the enrichment of financial institutions over the rights and dignity of individuals.

V. A Call to Restore Constitutional Principles

This decision is not merely about the rights of one man; it is a reckoning with systemic injustices that have persisted for decades. The framers of the Constitution envisioned a monetary system that would safeguard against the exploitation and instability inherent in fiat currency and usury. By ruling in favor of Mr. Moore, this Court reaffirms the supremacy of constitutional principles over entrenched financial practices.

The momentous importance of this decision cannot be overstated. It restores the rule of law in the realm of economic transactions, reasserts the constitutional mandate for sound money, and champions the rights of individuals against systemic exploitation. This ruling also serves as a reminder to all institutions, public and private, that the Constitution is not a mere relic of the past but a living charter of justice.

VI. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the foreclosure proceedings against Mr. Moore are unconstitutional and void. We further declare that contracts based on fiat currency lack valid consideration and cannot form the basis for lawful enforcement actions. Finally, we call upon Congress to revisit the monetary and financial systems in light of their constitutional obligations and the principles articulated in this opinion.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed.

---

It is so ordered.