JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Supreme Court limits government whistle-blower lawsuits
Jaclyn Belczyk at 12:07 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday ruled [opinion, PDF] 7-2 in Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that whistle-blowers cannot bring suit under the False Claims Act [text] to recover misspent government funds if the information used in the lawsuits came from state or local agencies' reports or audits. The suit arose out of public record documents that detailed a failure to obtain bids for the clean-up and reconstruction of storm-damaged portions of North Carolina. The petitioners claimed that the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred in concluding [opinion, PDF] that a state audit does not constitute an administrative report, audit, or investigation under the Act. In reversing the decision below, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:


Since its enactment during the Civil War, the False Claims Act has authorized both the Attorney General and private qui tam relators to recover from persons who make false or fraudulent claims for payment to the United States. The Act now contains a provision barring qui tam actions based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in certain specified sources. The question before us is whether the reference to "administrative" reports, audits, and investigations in that provision encompasses disclosures made in state and local sources as well as federal sources. We hold that it does.

Justice Antonin Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer.

The ruling could potentially bar thousands of lawsuits by whistle-blowers. However, Congress recently changed the language of the statute [SCOTUSblog report] as part of the health care reform bill [text] signed into law [JURIST report] last week. It is unclear whether the new wording will affect the case on remand.





Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 Hungary prosecutors charge accused Nazi with war crimes
1:19 PM ET, June 18

 ICC grants Kenya VP's request to skip parts of upcoming trial
12:23 PM ET, June 18

 Libya senior judge assassinated outside courthouse
9:29 AM ET, June 18

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

Is Egypt's Stance on the Blue Nile Dam Legally Justified?
DOMESTIC
Zeray Yihdego
University of Aberdeen School of Law

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org