The case Rockwell International Corp. v. United States (2006) revolved around the False Claims Act, which allows private individuals to sue on behalf of the government for fraudulent claims and share in any recovered damages. The whistleblower, James Stone, alleged that Rockwell had made false statements about its handling of environmental contamination at a nuclear weapons plant it operated for the U.S Department of Energy in Colorado. However, the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 against Stone because he lacked direct knowledge about many aspects of his allegations and instead based them on public information or speculation. According to Justice Scalia's majority opinion, whistleblowers must have independent knowledge not just at filing time but also when they initially make their claim with government officials; otherwise they are ineligible for rewards under this law. This decision clarified how courts should interpret "original source" requirement within False Claims Act - emphasizing that relators need firsthand involvement or experience with fraud being reported rather than simply relying upon secondhand information or public disclosures.

In the dissenting opinion for Rockwell International Corp. v. United States, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's interpretation of the False Claims Act (FCA) was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that a relator must have direct and independent knowledge of all essential elements of their claim to qualify as an original source under FCA, which he believed Stone did not possess in this case. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view on public disclosure bar - stating it should apply even if information is publicly disclosed after a lawsuit has been filed by a whistleblower who lacks direct and independent knowledge about false claims made against government contracts or programs. This would prevent opportunistic individuals from profiting off lawsuits based on secondhand information they had no role in uncovering themselves.