Schindler Elevator Corp. v. US ex rel. Kirk
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Mar 1, 2011
|May 16, 2011||5-3||Thomas||OT 2010|
Holding: A federal agencyâ€™s written response to a FOIA request for records is a â€œreportâ€ within the meaning of the disclosure bar of the False Claims Act. (Kagan, J., recused).
Plain English Holding: A private plaintiff may not sue a government contractor under the False Claims Act (which provides a bounty for private litigants who prove fraud against the government by government contractors) based on fraud that had already been disclosed by the government in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act, which generally requires the government to disclose documents in its possession in response to an individualâ€™s request.
Judgment: Reversed, 5-3, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on May 16, 2011. Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor.(Kagan, J., recused).
- This week at the Court: In Plain English
- Opinion analysis: Court restricts use of FOIA in FCA cases
- New curb on Bivens remedy?
- Argument recap: Court wrestles with the definition of â€œreportâ€
- Argument preview: Can information from a FOIA disclosure support an individual's False Claims Act suit?
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioner Schindler Elevator Corporation
- Brief for Respondent United States of America Ex Rel. Daniel Kirk
- Reply brief for Petitioner Schindler Elevator Corporation
- Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, American Hospital Association, and Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America in Support of Reversal
- Brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council in Support of Reversal
- Brief for the United Technologies Corporation in Support of Neither Party
- Brief for the United States in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Public Citizen in Support of Respondent
- Brief for AARP in Support of Respondent