The U.S. Supreme Court case Hughes Aircraft Company v. United States, ex rel. William J. Schumer (1996) centered around the interpretation of the False Claims Act (FCA). The plaintiff, William J. Schumer, a former engineer at Hughes Aircraft Company alleged that his employer submitted fraudulent cost estimates to the government for a contract related to satellite technology development and thus violated FCA's qui tam provision - which allows private individuals alleging fraud against federal programs or contracts to bring suit on behalf of the government in exchange for receiving part of any recovered damages. However, an amendment made in 1986 had expanded this provision by removing language that barred suits based on information already within governmental possession unless it was direct evidence not publicly disclosed; but also added new bar disallowing actions "based upon" public disclosures unless brought by original source of information. Hughes argued that since Schumer’s allegations were based on publicly available documents and he wasn't an original source as defined under amended act because he didn’t voluntarily provide info before filing action; therefore his claim should be dismissed. The Supreme Court agreed with Hughes' argument stating that pre-1986 version applied here as amendments weren't retroactive and hence ruled in favor of Hughes Aircraft Co., dismissing Schumer's claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Hughes Aircraft Company v. United States, ex rel. William J. Schumer, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of the False Claims Act (FCA) was too narrow and could potentially undermine its effectiveness in combating fraud against the government. She contended that Congress intended to encourage private individuals to expose fraudulent activities by offering them a share of any recovered funds through qui tam suits under FCA provisions. The majority’s decision would discourage such actions as it disallowed claims based on information already disclosed in public domain unless brought by an original source or insider with direct knowledge of misconducts not publicly disclosed before filing suit - a condition rarely met given most whistleblowers are outsiders who learn about fraud from public sources like governmental reports or media coverage rather than firsthand experience within offending organizations.