In the United States v. Bornstein case of 1975, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving false claims made to the government under contract. The defendant, Joseph Bornstein and his company Metro Novelty Manufacturing Co., were subcontractors providing radio kits to a prime contractor for supply to the federal government. They falsely represented that they used tubes in their kits from a certain manufacturer as specified by their contract when they actually used cheaper alternatives. When this was discovered, both civil and criminal charges were brought against them under the False Claims Act (FCA). The key issue before the court was how damages should be calculated under FCA - whether it should be based on each individual fraudulent claim submitted or each invoice containing multiple claims sent by contractors/subcontractors? In its decision, SCOTUS held that liability attaches separately for every single false claim presented; thus allowing treble damages per item rather than per invoice.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Bornstein, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's interpretation of the False Claims Act was too narrow and did not adequately protect government interests. He disagreed with their decision to limit damages only to those directly caused by fraudulent claims, arguing that this approach failed to account for indirect costs such as investigation expenses or potential harm from substandard goods or services. Furthermore, he contended that limiting penalties in cases involving subcontractors undermined deterrence since prime contractors could escape liability by outsourcing fraud-prone tasks. Overall, Justice Marshall believed a broader interpretation would better serve public interest by deterring fraud against the government more effectively.