The U.S. Supreme Court case Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel., Jonathan Stevens (1999) revolved around the interpretation of the False Claims Act, which allows private individuals to sue on behalf of the government for false claims made by others and share in any recovered damages. The key issue was whether a state or state agency could be sued under this act as a "person." Jonathan Stevens, an employee at Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources, alleged that his employer submitted false claims to the Environmental Protection Agency regarding compliance with federal environmental regulations. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that states are not "persons" subject to liability under the False Claims Act because they do not fall within its definition and historical context. Moreover, it held that private individuals like Stevens have standing (the right) to bring suits on behalf of the U.S., even if they haven't personally suffered injury from defendants' actions - based on 'qui tam' provisions in law allowing them to act as partial assignees for government's legal claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel., Jonathan Stevens, Justice Ginsburg argued that a private individual should be allowed to bring suit on behalf of the government under the False Claims Act (FCA). She disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Article III standing requirements and contended that historical context supported her view. The FCA was enacted during a time when it was common for individuals to act as "private attorneys general" in enforcing public rights, she noted. Furthermore, she pointed out that Congress had repeatedly amended and reauthorized this law without changing its qui tam provisions - suggesting legislative endorsement of citizen suits. Finally, Ginsburg emphasized that allowing such suits could help deter fraud against the government by providing an incentive for whistleblowers.