In the case of Schindler Elevator Corporation v. United States ex rel. Daniel Kirk, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Schindler Elevator Corporation by a 5-3 vote. The issue at hand was whether or not information obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests could be used as a basis for whistleblower lawsuits under the False Claims Act (FCA). Daniel Kirk, a former employee of Schindler Elevator Corp., had filed an FCA lawsuit against his previous employer alleging that they submitted false claims to the government regarding their compliance with certain reporting requirements related to Vietnam-era veterans' employment. His allegations were based on information his wife received through FOIA requests she made about her husband's former employer’s records held by federal agencies. However, according to Justice Thomas who delivered the opinion for majority, using such data from FOIA violated provisions within FCA which prohibits suits based on publicly disclosed allegations or transactions in governmental reports unless plaintiff is original source.

In the dissenting opinion for Schindler Elevator Corporation v. United States ex rel. Daniel Kirk, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of the False Claims Act (FCA) was too narrow and would hinder whistleblowers from exposing fraud against the government. She contended that reports obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests should not be considered "public disclosures" barring a whistleblower suit under FCA, as they are often essential tools for uncovering fraudulent activities. The majority’s ruling, she warned, could discourage potential whistleblowers who rely on such information to substantiate their claims before coming forward. Furthermore, she pointed out inconsistencies in defining what constitutes a public disclosure by noting that documents sitting untouched in court files can bar an FCA action while those actively sought from federal agencies cannot.