In its recent unanimous and significant decision in the consolidated cases of United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, No. 21-1326 (6-1-23), and United States ex rel. Proctol v. Safeway, Inc., No. 22-111 (6-1-23), the Supreme Court defined the term “knowingly” in the False Claims Act and reversed the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 US 47 (2007), which had held companies could not have acted “knowingly” if their actions were consistent with “an objectively reasonable interpretation of the law that had not been ruled out by definitive legal authority or guidance.”
The Court explained that the False Claims Act text and common law roots refer to a defendant’s knowledge and subjective beliefs. The Court explained that the False Claims Act sets out a three-part definition of the term “knowingly” that largely tracks the traditional common law scienter requirement for claims of fraud, namely, (1) actual knowledge, (2) deliberate ignorance or (3) recklessness.
The Court explained that each of those terms focus on what the defendant thought and believed: “Actual knowledge” refers to what the defendant is aware of. “Deliberate ignorance” encompasses defendants who are aware of a substantial risk that their statements are false, but intentionally avoid taking steps to confirm the statements’ truth or falsity. And, “recklessness disregard” captures defendants who are conscious of a substantial and justifiable risk that their claims are false, but...
U.S. President Donald Trump said Wednesday that Iran had agreed not to execute eight women protesters, while Iranian officials and the judiciary denied any such executions had been planned and des...