The United States Supreme Court case, United States for the Benefit of Sherman et al., Trustees v. Carter et al., Doing Business as Carter Construction Co., et al. (1956), revolved around a dispute over payment under the Miller Act, which provides protection to suppliers and subcontractors in federal construction projects. The plaintiffs were trustees of a union welfare fund who sued on behalf of an unpaid supplier to recover contributions owed by the defendant, Carter Construction Company, under its collective bargaining agreement with a labor union. The defendants argued that such claims were not covered by their surety bond because they did not constitute "labor" or "material" within the meaning of the Miller Act. However, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs stating that these payments fell within those categories since they are part and parcel to wage agreements negotiated through collective bargaining.

In the dissenting opinion for the United States for the Benefit of Sherman et al., Trustees, v. Carter et al., Doing Business as Carter Construction Co., Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a federal statute that required contractors to post performance bonds on federally funded projects. He argued that this law was intended to protect laborers and material suppliers from non-payment by ensuring they could recover their losses directly from surety companies if necessary. The majority held that trustees managing employee benefit funds were not entitled to such protection because they did not fit within statutory definitions of "laborers" or "materialmen." However, Frankfurter contended this narrow reading ignored Congress' broader intent to safeguard all those who contribute labor or materials towards public works projects. He believed it was illogical and unfair to exclude these trustees simply because their role in construction work is indirect rather than direct.