In the case of Sheriff v. Gillie, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of private attorneys who were hired by Ohio's Attorney General to collect debts owed to state-owned agencies and used official letterhead from the attorney general’s office for correspondence related to debt collection efforts. The plaintiffs, Mark Sheriff and Eric Jones, argued that this practice was misleading and violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). However, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2016, it was held that these special counsel acted as officers of the State when they undertook their assigned tasks; hence their use of AG letterhead did not offend FDCPA’s prohibition against false or deceptive representations. The court reasoned that because these lawyers were acting on behalf of the state attorney general's office - an actual creditor - they weren't subject to provisions typically applied to third-party debt collectors under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Sheriff v. Gillie, Justice Sotomayor argued that private attorneys acting on behalf of the state should not be allowed to use official letterhead from a state office when collecting debts. She believed this practice could mislead consumers into thinking they are being contacted directly by the government rather than a private debt collector, which is potentially deceptive and unfair. The majority's decision to allow such practices was seen as undermining federal consumer protection laws designed to prevent abusive debt collection tactics. In her view, allowing these collectors to present themselves as government officials would give them undue authority and influence over vulnerable consumers who may feel intimidated or pressured into paying their debts without fully understanding their rights or options.