Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. (2025) Ghost of Justice Scalia
Explore comprehensive materials and insightful commentary on Moore v. Alliant Credit Union by visiting this resourcehub, offering in-depth analysis and key perspectives on this critical case.
Supreme Court of the United States
Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. (2025)
Opinion of the Court by Justice Scalia (delivered from the beyond, with characteristic rigor and clarity)
Today, we confront a case that touches upon the very foundation of constitutional governance, economic integrity, and the contractual underpinnings of a free society. At stake is whether a foreclosure action initiated under a mortgage agreement secured by fiat currency is consistent with the text, structure, and historical understanding of the Constitution.
This Court rules in favor of Mr. Moore. While the case involves nuanced questions of economics and finance, the resolution is straightforward when we adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution, as it was ratified and intended to operate.
I. A Textual and Historical Foundation
The Constitution does not leave to chance the question of money. Article I, Section 10 plainly states: “No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” This prohibition reflects the framers' deep distrust of paper money, born of bitter experience under the Articles of Confederation, where unbacked currency proved a source of economic chaos and inequity.
The textual command is unambiguous. States cannot make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender. The framers designed this clause to ensure a sound monetary system, avoiding the pitfalls of speculative and inflationary currencies. While Congress was granted the authority to “coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,” this grant does not include the power to delegate such authority to private entities, as exemplified by the Federal Reserve’s issuance of fiat currency.
The historical record supports Mr. Moore’s claim that fiat currency—a form of tender untethered from intrinsic value—is an affront to the principles enshrined in the Constitution. Contracts grounded in such a medium are inherently suspect, as they lack the mutual exchange of value required by the common law and sound contractual doctrine.
II. The Unenforceability of Invalid Contracts
The framers understood, and so do we, that contracts require consideration. As this Court held in Carpenter v. Longan(1872), a mortgage cannot be divorced from the promissory note it secures, and the enforceability of one depends on the validity of the other. Where the promissory note is void—such as when it is based on a currency that contravenes constitutional principles—the mortgage is similarly invalid.
Mr. Moore’s argument is simple, powerful, and correct: a loan secured by fiat currency, created ex nihilo, lacks the tangible consideration required to bind the borrower in law or equity. Alliant Credit Union demanded repayment in real assets—his home—while offering, in exchange, a medium of exchange that is neither constitutionally sanctioned nor intrinsically valuable. This is the very definition of unjust enrichment, a doctrine the framers would have recognized as a necessary safeguard against the kind of economic exploitation that fiat currency inherently entails.
III. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: Property and Process
Turning to Mr. Moore’s due process claims, the Fifth Amendment’s protection against the deprivation of property without due process of law is a bedrock principle of the Constitution. This protection is extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Foreclosure is an extraordinary remedy, one that requires adherence to the highest standards of procedural fairness.
In this case, the foreclosure proceedings were based on a fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional contract. To seize Mr. Moore’s property under these circumstances is nothing less than a governmental endorsement of economic exploitation. Due process is not satisfied by a mere procedural checklist; it demands substantive adherence to justice.
Further, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids the transfer of private property for private use without just compensation. By enabling Alliant Credit Union to foreclose on Mr. Moore’s home under a void mortgage, the government has sanctioned precisely what the framers sought to prevent: the transfer of real wealth from the citizenry to privileged interests without constitutional justification.
IV. Usury and the Thirteenth Amendment
I must address a point raised by Mr. Moore that touches upon the systemic implications of fiat currency and usury. The Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude is not limited to physical compulsion; it encompasses economic systems that coerce individuals into perpetual labor for the benefit of others. The fiat currency system, married to compounding interest, creates precisely such a condition.
Borrowers, like Mr. Moore, are trapped in an endless cycle of debt, their labor and resources perpetually directed toward satisfying obligations that are mathematically impossible to fulfill. While the Court need not expand the scope of the Thirteenth Amendment in this case, it suffices to say that Mr. Moore’s plight illustrates the pernicious effects of a monetary system that disregards constitutional principles.
V. A Return to Constitutional Fidelity
The Constitution is not a mere suggestion; it is a covenant. The framers understood that economic stability and justice are inseparable from sound money. They were not economists, nor need we be, to grasp this fundamental truth. The framers enshrined these principles in the text of the Constitution, and it is our duty to enforce them faithfully.
Our decision today is a reaffirmation of the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. It is a rejection of systems and practices that exploit the citizenry under the guise of legality.
VI. Conclusion
For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the lower court. Mr. Moore’s mortgage is void for lack of valid consideration, and the foreclosure proceedings based upon it are unconstitutional. The decision of this Court is a clarion call to restore the integrity of our monetary system and the sanctity of constitutional governance.
It is so ordered.
Thank you!!!
ReplyDeleteFAKE
ReplyDelete