Enter your email address to subscribe to updates to this case (by doing so, you are accepting the terms in our privacy policy):

Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
18-315	11th Cir.	Mar 19, 2019 Tr.Aud.	TBD	TBD	TBD	OT 2018

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondent in this case.

Issue: Whether a relator in a False Claims Act qui tam action may rely on the statute of limitations in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2) in a suit in which the United States has declined to intervene and, if so, whether the relator constitutes an “official of the United States” for purposes of Section 3731(b)(2).

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Argument analysis: Sorting out a thorny statute-of-limitations question in False Claims Act case (Mark Walsh)
Argument preview: Justices to determine relevant statute of limitations for whistleblower suits under the False Claims Act (David Engstrom)
Justices to weigh in on evidence in census citizenship-question dispute (Amy Howe)
Petitions of the week (Aurora Barnes)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jun 19 2018	Application (17A1390) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 10, 2018 to September 8, 2018, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Jun 28 2018	Application (17A1390) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until September 8, 2018.
Sep 07 2018	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 11, 2018)
Oct 03 2018	Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Cochise Consultancy, Inc. and The Parsons Corporation.
Oct 04 2018	Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, United States of America ex rel. Billy Joe Hunt.
Oct 11 2018	Response to petition from respondent United States of America ex rel. Billy Joe Hunt filed.
Oct 11 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.
Oct 23 2018	Reply of petitioners Cochise Consultancy, Inc. and The Parsons Corporation filed.
Oct 24 2018	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2018.
Nov 13 2018	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/16/2018.
Nov 16 2018	Petition GRANTED.
Jan 02 2019	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Jan 02 2019	Brief of petitioner Cochise Consultancy, Inc. and The Parsons Corporation filed.
Jan 02 2019	Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, United States of America ex rel. Billy Joe Hunt
Jan 03 2019	Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Cochise Consultancy, Inc. and The Parsons Corporation.
Jan 07 2019	Brief amicus curiae of Joel D. Hesch filed.
Jan 09 2019	Brief amicus curiae of Coalition for Government Procurement filed.
Jan 09 2019	Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.
Jan 09 2019	Brief amici curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.
Jan 09 2019	Brief amici curiae of DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar, and the Professional Services Counsel-The Voice of the Government Services Industry filed.
Jan 25 2019	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Feb 01 2019	Brief of respondent United States of America ex rel. Billy Joe Hunt filed.
Feb 08 2019	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Feb 08 2019	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Feb 08 2019	Brief amici curiae of Indiana and 19 Other States filed.
Feb 08 2019	Brief amicus curiae of Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund filed.
Feb 08 2019	Brief amicus curiae of The National Whistleblower Center filed.
Feb 14 2019	CIRCULATED
Feb 21 2019	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.
Feb 25 2019	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Feb 28 2019	The record from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. The record is complete.
Mar 04 2019	Reply of petitioner Cochise Consultancy, Inc. and The Parsons Corporation filed. (Distributed)
Mar 19 2019	Argued. For petitioners: Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal. For respondent: Earl N. Mayfield, III, Fairfax, Va.; and Matthew Guarnieri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)

Featured Posts

Academic highlight: Levitt on the collateral consequences of Department of Commerce v. New York – Amanda Frost

New rules mean tighter deadlines, fewer words – Amy Howe

Relist Watch: The Muller Report – John Elwood
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court will release orders from the April 18 conference on Monday at 9:30 a.m.; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions that were relisted for this conference.
There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m.
On Monday, the justices hear oral argument in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media and Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis.
On Tuesday, the justices hear oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York, Mitchell v. Wisconsin and Rehaif v. United States.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Quarles v. United States and Taggart v. Lorenzen.
On Friday, the justices met for their April 26 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Biestek v. Berryhill A vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data during a Social Security disability benefits hearing upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence” in federal court under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
- Bucklew v. Precythe Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain; Russell Bucklew’s as-applied challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol -- that it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition -- fails to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test.
- Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of Securities and Exchange Commission Rules 10b–5(a) and (c), as well as the relevant statutory provisions, even if the disseminator cannot be held liable under Rule 10b–5(b).
- Republic of Sudan v. Harrison When civil process is served on a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. §1608(a)(3) requires a mailing to be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the foreign state.
- Sturgeon v. Frost Alaska’s Nation River is not public land; and like all non-public lands and navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks, it is exempt under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act from the National Park Service’s ordinary regulatory authority.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Barton v. Barr Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 63

Cases decided 31

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Apr. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
	1 Orders Opinions	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12 Conference	13
14	15 Orders IANCU V. BRUNETTI (18-302) EMULEX CORP. V. VARJABEDIAN (18-459)	16 PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES V. NEWTON (18-389) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KAESTNER FAMILY TRUST (18-457)	17 UNITED STATES V. DAVIS (18-431) MCDONOUGH V. SMITH (18-485)	18 Conference	19	20
21	22 Orders FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE V. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA (18-481) FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS V. DAVIS (18-525)	23 MITCHELL V. WISCONSIN (18-6210) REHAIF V. UNITED STATES (17-9560) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. NEW YORK (18-966) Opinions	24 QUARLES V. UNITED STATES (17-778) TAGGART V. LORENZEN (18-489)	25	26 Conference	27
28	29 Orders	30

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	63
Cases decided	31
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	74

Editor's Note :

Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Academic highlight: Levitt on the collateral consequences of Department of Commerce v. New York – Amanda Frost

New rules mean tighter deadlines, fewer words – Amy Howe

Relist Watch: The Muller Report – John Elwood

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of April 19, 2019

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Apr. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award