In the case of United States et al. v. Benmar Transport & Leasing Corp. et al., 1979, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a federal statute that allowed for prejudgment attachment without prior notice or hearing violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The dispute arose when Benmar Transport & Leasing Corp and other defendants were sued by the government over alleged violations of customs laws, with their property seized before trial as security for any potential judgment against them. The defendants argued this seizure was unconstitutional because they weren't given an opportunity to challenge it beforehand. The court ruled in favor of Benmar, finding that such seizures did indeed violate due process rights unless there are extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event takes place.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States et al. v. Benmar Transport & Leasing Corp. et al., 1979, argued that the majority's decision to allow a private party to bring suit under the False Claims Act (FCA) without first obtaining consent from the Attorney General was incorrect and contrary to legislative intent. The dissent pointed out that Congress had specifically included a provision requiring such consent in order to prevent frivolous lawsuits and protect government interests, which could be compromised by uncontrolled litigation brought by private parties seeking personal gain rather than justice or public good. Furthermore, it was noted that this interpretation would potentially open floodgates for opportunistic litigants who might misuse this power for their own benefit at significant cost and inconvenience to defendants as well as courts themselves.