The U.S. Supreme Court case Amchem Products, Inc., et al. v. George Windsor et al., 1996 revolved around a class-action lawsuit brought by individuals who had been exposed to asbestos products manufactured by Amchem and other companies but were not yet ill or impaired due to this exposure. The plaintiffs sought compensation for future medical monitoring and treatment costs related to potential health issues caused by the asbestos exposure. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them, stating that they did not meet the requirements for a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because their claims lacked commonality - i.e., they didn't share enough legal or factual similarities - and typicality - i.e., their claims weren't sufficiently representative of those in the entire group seeking damages.

In the dissenting opinion for Amchem Products, Inc. v. George Windsor et al., Justice Breyer argued that the majority's decision to reject a global settlement of asbestos-related claims was too rigid and failed to consider practical realities. He contended that the Court should have given more weight to Congress' intent in enacting Rule 23, which allows class action lawsuits under certain circumstances, and its desire for efficient resolution of large numbers of similar claims. The dissent also pointed out that many claimants might receive no compensation at all if forced to pursue individual lawsuits due to time constraints or bankruptcy among defendants. Furthermore, it emphasized that lower courts had found the proposed settlement fair after extensive hearings and negotiations between parties involved.