Sveen v. Melin, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided whether a Minnesota law violated the Contract Clause of the Constitution of the United States.

"[1] Second, the law doesn't disturb a policy holder's expectations because it is well within the power of divorce courts to revoke beneficiary status upon the dissolution of a marriage.

Third, if Sveen had so wished, he could have easily prevented this default rule from removing his ex-wife from his policy Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch was the sole dissenter in this case.

Second, he writes that Minnesota could have used a much less intrusive method of reaching their goal such as requiring the divorce court to confirm beneficiary designation before the dissolution is finalized.

The majority upheld the law partly on the basis that it could be easily undone, Gorsuch writes, "yet the Court just finished telling us the statute is justified because most policyholders neglect their beneficiary designations after divorce.