The case of Staats, Comptroller General of the United States, et al. v. Bristol Laboratories Division of Bristol-Myers Co., 1980 revolved around a dispute over pricing for drugs sold to the government by pharmaceutical company Bristol Laboratories under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). The U.S Supreme Court had to determine whether or not certain provisions in federal law required drug manufacturers like Bristol Labs to sell their products at the lowest prices they offered private customers. The court ruled that these laws did indeed mandate such price parity between sales made directly to government agencies and those made through wholesalers who then resold them to other entities including hospitals and pharmacies. This decision was based on an interpretation that Congress intended for all purchases under FSS contracts - regardless if direct or indirect - should be treated equally when it comes down determining what constitutes "the maximum allowable cost" per unit.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Staats, Comptroller General of the United States, et al. v. Bristol Laboratories Division of Bristol-Myers Co., 1980 argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with both statutory language and legislative intent. The dissent believed that Congress intended for a broader interpretation of "manufacturing costs" to include all direct and indirect costs associated with production when it enacted legislation governing pricing regulations for pharmaceuticals sold to government agencies. They also disagreed with the majority's view that certain overhead expenses should be excluded from manufacturing cost calculations because they are not directly attributable to specific products or batches produced by a manufacturer. Instead, they contended these types of general business expenses are integral components of overall manufacturing operations and therefore should be factored into price determinations under federal law.