The False Claims Act has for decades been the government’s primary anti-fraud statute. The Department of Justice has used the law to recover more than $70 billion since 1986, largely in cases related to health care and defense contracting. Under the FCA, a defendant is liable for submitting a false claim to the government for payment if it acted “knowingly,” which the statute defines as acting with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard. On Tuesday, the justices will hear arguments in a pair of cases on whether a defendant can be found to have acted knowingly if it believed its conduct was unlawful but its conduct represented an objectively reasonable interpretation of the relevant legal requirement.
Significantly, FCA cases frequently involve complex rules — defendants frequently seek to challenge the government’s position on the legal requirements at issue, and the government regularly points to evidence that defendants were aware they were breaking the rules. A ruling for the defendants here would eliminate an important weapon from the government’s arsenal unless it could first show that the defendant’s alternative interpretation had already been foreclosed by authoritative guidance warning it away from the view it took.
The two consolidated cases — U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. and U.S. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway — involve similar allegations. The plaintiffs are whistleblowers suing under the FCA’s qui tam provision – that is, on behalf...
A short video circulating widely on social media claims that US Representative Ilhan Omar referred to World War II as “World War 11” while discussing the Alien Enemies Act. The clip has been share...