The United States ex rel. Ostrager et al. v. New Orleans Chapter, Associated General Contractors, Inc., et al., 1942 case involved a group of contractors who were accused of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by conspiring to fix prices and rig bids for public construction projects in Louisiana during the Great Depression era. The defendants argued that their actions were justified under the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which allowed certain industries to self-regulate and establish "codes of fair competition." However, this argument was rejected by lower courts on grounds that NIRA did not exempt them from antitrust laws or authorize bid-rigging practices. The Supreme Court affirmed these rulings stating that even if NIRA had been intended to suspend antitrust enforcement temporarily within certain sectors, it could not be interpreted as authorizing illegal activities such as price-fixing or bid-rigging schemes among competitors. Furthermore, since NIRA had already been declared unconstitutional in an unrelated case before this one reached the Supreme Court level (Schechter Poultry Corp v US), its provisions could no longer provide any legal defense for those charged with antitrust violations.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Ostrager et al. v. New Orleans Chapter, Associated General Contractors, Inc., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to allow a private party to sue on behalf of the government under the False Claims Act was inconsistent with both historical precedent and legislative intent. He contended that such lawsuits were traditionally brought by public officials acting in their official capacity, not by private individuals seeking personal gain. Furthermore, he believed that Congress had intended to limit these types of suits when it amended the False Claims Act in 1943 because they could potentially lead to frivolous litigation and unjust enrichment at public expense.