[author: Jaclyn Jaeger]
A whistleblower case that began more than a decade ago and has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately could have significant implications for other whistleblower cases. At the very least, the decision will bring much needed clarity around the government’s dismissal powers under the False Claims Act.
The key question presented to the Court in the case United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources is “whether the government may dismiss a suit under the False Claims Act (FCA), after initially declining to proceed with the action, and what standard applies if the government has that authority.”
The FCA, 31 U.S.C. section 3729, authorizes private parties (called “relators”) to file “qui tam” actions on behalf of themselves and the government against those who have engaged in deceptive practices involving government funds. If the government chooses to proceed with the lawsuit, the relator may receive a portion of the government’s recovery – meaning there is the potential for a significant financial incentive in filing an FCA claim. Where the government decides not to proceed, the relator may move forward with the claim, with the government remaining an interested party.
The central controversy of this case concerns the text of section 3730(c)(2)(A) of the FCA, which states that the government “may dismiss the action notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action if the person has been notified by the...
Home Office minister Jess Phillips has told MPs there are a growing number of cases of migrants making false allegations that they have been the victims of domestic abuse. She was asked about the ...