When I first read the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu I found the decision both troubling and very difficult to understand. Upon some additional reflection, however, I think that the decision has the potential to be a good thing for all parties involved in False Claims Act (FCA) litigation.
The decision was focused on whether the government needed to demonstrate that a party’s intent was objectively incorrect to prevail in a False Claims Act case, or whether their subjective intent was controlled. This can be a bit hard to understand, at least for me, but the question was “if the defendants thought that what they were doing is wrong, did they have improper intent even if they can show that there were ways to interpret the law that would have permitted their conduct? The court ruled that even if there were interpretations that would justify the behavior, the defendant had improper intent unless they were relying on those interpretations.
The distinction between subjective and objective intent can seem a bit overwhelming. But the more I think about the case, the more I think it is a poor use of brain power to focus too much on that difference.
In fact, one of my takeaways from the case is that in general, “intent” will often be a less important element in FCA cases. But this change offers a significant benefit.
Let me explain.
In a FCA case, there are two broad questions. First, were the claims, or statements made to justify those...
WASHINGTON, April 23 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s years-long campaign to undermine faith in U.S. elections has gained broad traction with the American public, a Reuters/Ipsos poll shows, p...