In the case of United States v. Maryland for the Use of Meyer et al., 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that a surety on a performance bond issued to protect against default by a prime contractor could not be held liable for damages suffered by subcontractors due to nonpayment. The dispute arose when two subcontractors sued their prime contractor and its surety company after they were not paid for work performed under contracts with federal agencies. They argued that as beneficiaries of the Miller Act's payment bonds, they should receive compensation from both parties involved in their contract agreements. However, it was determined that while these bonds do provide protection against loss resulting from failure of performance by contractors or subcontractors, this does not extend to cover losses incurred through nonpayment issues between contractors and subcontractors themselves.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Maryland for the Use of Meyer et al., 1965, argued that the majority's decision to allow a state (Maryland) to sue on behalf of its citizens against another entity (the U.S.) was fundamentally flawed. The dissenters believed this ruling violated principles of federalism and sovereignty by allowing states too much power over federal entities. They also expressed concern about potential abuse, as it could lead to states suing on behalf of their citizens without proper consent or representation. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation that a certain statute allowed such lawsuits; instead, they interpreted it as only permitting suits between private parties and not involving sovereign entities like states or nations.