Court clarifies False Claims Act
The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, by a vote of 6-2, that a person bringing a lawsuit to recover misspent federal funds must have direct and independent knowledge of the facts behind the claim in order to be eligible to sue. The facts for which that individual must be the original source, the Court declared, are the facts underlying the specific claims asserted, rather than being the source for information that came out in public through government action. Thus, if the facts change as the claim proceeds in court, the suing individual must still know personally of the facts underlying the changing claims.
The decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, clarified the meaning of the False Claims Act requirement that an individual bringing a so-called “qui tam” lawsuit must be able to show that he or she is the “original source” of the information about the false claim, and thus is not relying upon information previously disclosed to the public. The ruling, in Rockwell International v. U.S.ex rel. Stone (05-1272, opinion), concluded that the suing individual must satisfy the “original source” requirement in all stages of the lawsuit, and not just in the original complaint.
Lower courts had been divided on the meaning of the “original source” requirement. In spelling out what that means, the Court rejected the “qui tam” claim of a former employee of Rockwell International Corp. who had won a $4.1 million judgment after claiming radioactive contamination at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in Golden, Colo. (Boeing North American Inc. has since acquired Rockwell.)
This was one of two decisions on the merits announced Tuesday. In the other, the Court decided that the Territory of Guam must calculate its borrowing limit based upon the assessed value of property in the Territory, not the appraised value. There were four partial dissents in Limtiaco v. Camacho (06-116, opinion). Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion. The decision resolved a dispute between the two top officials of Guam’s government about its debt limit.
The decision interpreted the Guam Organic Act.
In the long run, the case from Guam may be the more important one.
The False Claims case can be overruled at any time by statute.
The unanimous portion of the case involving Guam’s debt limitations implicitly assents to a law stripping the 9th Circuit of jurisdiction over a pending appeal from the Guam Supreme Court. Retroactive jurisdiction stripping laws, of course, are highly relevant to war on terrorism cases and also to a variety of other highly charged political end runs around the courts.
The Guam case, of course, didn’t strip all federal courts of the power to review the case in question. It simply shifted the forum from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a venue Republicans don’t like, to the U.S. Supreme Court, a venue with far less capacity to review lower court cases. The text of the case doesn’t make clear what the motive for the retroactive change in jurisdiction was for Congress.
Of course, the jurisdiction stripping Congress engaged in doesn’t raise the specter of denying a pending case all review by denying it any forum, as many recent jurisdiction stripping statutes have done. There is also nothing inherently wrong with treating the Guam Supreme Court more like a state supreme court and less like a U.S. District Court, although, of course, as a unique creature of statute, it is really neither.
But, there can be little doubt that the government will raise the Guam case in support of its other litigation involving the validity of jurisdiction stripping provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Detainee Treatment Act which proceeded it.
Comment by Andrew Oh-Willeke — March 27, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Andrew,
Thanks for that explanation.
But I think your characterization of Guam is a bit off. Guam’s Supreme Court is a territorial court under Congressional authority. The reason Congress can shift review to any federal court it wants is that there isn’t any “geographical proximity” limitation you can read into The Territorial Clause, which states: “The Congress shall have Powers to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”.
So Congress isn’t technically “stripping” jurisdiction. It is deciding what jurisdiction is proper under its plenary authority to determine territorial court jurisdiction.
Guantanamo, unlike Guam, is not a territory of the United States. Is your point that the lease permitting American control of Guantanamo is federal property?
Comment by Jacques McKenzie — March 27, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
My point is that this case illustrates that eliminating a court’s jurisdiction by statute in a pending case, without even guaranteeing that it will be adjudicated in another forum, is something that no justice on a unanimous court objected to.
No one doubts that Congress may shift jurisdiction over appeals from courts it creates prospectively, it least if all resort to the courts is not eliminated. But, when you strip a court of jurisdiction it had at the time over currently pending cases and don’t provide a guaranteed replacement venue (SCOTUS made its own cert determination and was not bound by the 9th Circuit’s cert grant), the legislative action takes on a “writ of attainder”/”separation of powers interference” quality. Retroactive jurisdictional legislation of this type meddles with the active court docket for a well defined set of cases in a way that necessarily impacts the merits.
The issue raised by this case is not the territorial status of Guantanamo, it is the power of Congress to destroy the rights of litigants which were vested when suit was filed, that have not been adjudicated merely due to delays beyond their control from the courts themselves by depriving the courts handling the cases of jurisdiction.
Comment by Andrew Oh-Willeke — March 27, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
The issue raised by this case is not the territorial status of Guantanamo, it is the power of Congress to destroy the rights of litigants which were vested when suit was filed…
Since Congress can determine how much of the Constitution applies to its territories, I don’t see the problem you do.
There is no proof Congress sought to target this particular case. Nor do I think this is equivalent to Congress trying to transform the adjudicative impact of a Presidential pardon. No facts in this case suggest such Congressional malice. Moreover, the litigants in this case were all political actors squabbling over their interpretation of an ambiguous law: specifically, the Governor and the Attorney General of Guam. None were private individuals pursuing individual rights. Having the Guam Supreme Court finally decide the matter would have made no difference, given that its decision was affirmed and unsettled.
So I fail to see how your argument is relevant.
Comment by Jacques McKenzie — March 28, 2007 @ 2:57 am