In the 1943 case United States v. Blair, Individually and to the Use of Roanoke Marble & Granite Co., Inc., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Blair, who was sued by a subcontractor (Roanoke Marble & Granite Co.) for unpaid work on a federal construction project. The Miller Act requires general contractors on federal projects to post payment bonds guaranteeing that subcontractors will be paid. However, it does not specify whether these bonds cover only those directly contracted with or also second-tier subcontractors (those hired by other subcontractors). In this case, Roanoke was a second-tier contractor and had not been paid by its hiring contractor despite completing its work. When they sought payment from Blair's bond company under the Miller Act, both Blair and his surety argued that as per their interpretation of the act’s language; it did not extend protection to second-tier contractors like Roanoke. The court disagreed with this narrow interpretation ruling instead that such an understanding would undermine Congress' intent when passing the law - which was ensuring all laborers/materialmen working on government contracts are compensated regardless of their contractual relationship with prime contractors.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Blair, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a private company to sue an individual under federal law in order to collect on a debt owed by another party is unjust and sets a dangerous precedent. The dissenting justices believed that this interpretation of the law could potentially lead to abuse, as it essentially allows any creditor who has obtained judgment against their debtor in state court to then use federal courts as collection agencies. They also expressed concern about potential violations of due process rights, arguing that individuals should not be held liable for debts they did not personally incur without having had an opportunity to defend themselves in court. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that such suits are necessary for efficient government operation; instead suggesting alternative solutions like improving administrative procedures or pursuing legislative changes.