Wisconsin Bell v. US ex rel Heath (False Claims Act)

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

#Government #RJ Dieken #Supreme Court #Legal #Supreme Court Opinion #Slip Opinion #Scotuscast #Court #Law #News #Politics #Podcasting Education #SCOTUS #Supreme Court Decision

27:28

Chris Nowinski is a former football player at Harvard University and professional wrestler with WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment. After enduring a career-ending head injury, Chris has dedicated his professional life to serving patients and families affected by brain trauma, particularly Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, a progressive neurodegenerative disease that develops after repeated head injuries. Jay and Chris discuss the state of head injuries in American athletics, the difference between advocating for head safety at youth and professional levels, Chris’ newest research, and much more. Episode Chapters (00:00) Intro (00:50) changes in the culture around concussions in the past two decades (02:39) padded helmet technology (03:55) concussion reporting in the NFL (10:35) Chris’ career path and concussion history (14:52) connecting with activists who haven’t themselves suffered a traumatic brain injury (17:42) SHAAKE - a new sign to identify concussions (20:53) Unions can help players advocate for safety policies (23:10) final thoughts and goodbye For video episodes, watch on www.youtube.com/@therudermanfamilyfoundation Stay in touch: X: @JayRuderman | @RudermanFdn LinkedIn: Jay Ruderman | Ruderman Family Foundation Instagram: All About Change Podcast | Ruderman Family Foundation To learn more about the podcast, visit https://allaboutchangepodcast.com/…

for 12 dage siden 7:02

MP3•Episode hjem

Send us a text

In Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath, the Supreme Court unanimously affirms that E-Rate reimbursement requests qualify as “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA). The case centers on whether federal subsidies distributed through the E-Rate program—funded by contributions from telecommunications carriers and administered by a private corporation—constitute government-provided money for FCA purposes.

Writing for the Court, Justice Kagan holds that because the government transferred over $100 million from the U.S. Treasury into the E-Rate fund, it “provided” a portion of the money requested, satisfying the statutory definition under 31 U.S.C. §3729(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I). The ruling rejects Wisconsin Bell’s argument that the government was merely an intermediary, emphasizing that the government actively collected, managed, and disbursed funds, akin to its broader fiscal operations.

The decision affirms the Seventh Circuit and allows the FCA suit to proceed. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh each filed concurring opinions (both of whom signed onto one another's), and Justice Alito signed onto a portion of the Thomas concurrence.

467 episoder

Wisconsin Bell v. US ex rel Heath (False Claims Act)

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

91 subscribers

published for 12 dage siden

Del

MP3•Episode hjem

Send us a text

467 episoder

#Government #RJ Dieken #Supreme Court #Legal #Supreme Court Opinion #Slip Opinion #Scotuscast #Court #Law #News #Politics #Podcasting Education #SCOTUS #Supreme Court Decision

Semua episod

1
San Francisco v. EPA (Admin Law / Clean Water Act) 9:57

for 7 dage siden9:57

9:57

Send us a text In City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency , the Supreme Court addressed the scope of the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case arose when the EPA issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to San Francisco's wastewater treatment facilities, including provisions that prohibited discharges contributing to violations of water quality standards and creating pollution or nuisance as defined by California law. San Francisco challenged these "end-result" requirements, arguing they exceeded the EPA's statutory authority. The Ninth Circuit upheld the EPA's permit conditions, interpreting Section 1311(b)(1)(C) of the CWA to authorize any limitations necessary to meet water quality standards, not limited to specific effluent limitations. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that Section 1311(b)(1)(C) does not authorize the EPA to include "end-result" provisions in NPDES permits. The Court emphasized that it is the EPA's responsibility to determine specific steps a permittee must take to ensure compliance with water quality standards, rather than imposing broad, outcome-based requirements. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh joined. Justice Neil Gorsuch joined as to all but Part II. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined as to Part II. Justice Barrett filed an opinion dissenting in part, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Read by RJ Dieken.…

1
Dewberry Group Inc v. Dewberry Engineers Inc (Trademark) 6:26

for 7 dage siden6:26

6:26

Send us a text In Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. , the Supreme Court addressed the scope of monetary remedies under the Lanham Act. The case arose from a trademark dispute between two entities using the "Dewberry" name. The district court awarded the plaintiff not only the defendant's profits but also those of affiliated companies. The Fourth Circuit upheld this award, reasoning that a broad interpretation of "defendant’s profits" was permissible under the statute. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement case under the Lanham Act may recover only the profits of the infringing defendant itself—not those of its affiliates or related entities. The Court emphasized principles of corporate separateness and statutory interpretation, rejecting the expansive reading of "defendant’s profits" adopted by the lower court. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Read by RJ Dieken.…

1
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Arbitration / Civil Procedure) 5:41

for 11 dage siden5:41

5:41

Send us a text In Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. , the Supreme Court held that a case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) qualifies as a "final proceeding" under Rule 60(b), allowing a district court to reopen the case. Gary Waetzig sued Halliburton for age discrimination but later dismissed his case without prejudice and pursued arbitration. After losing in arbitration, he sought to reopen his federal case and vacate the arbitration award under Rule 60(b). The district court granted his motion, but the Tenth Circuit reversed. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Alito explained that the text, context, and history of Rule 60(b) support treating a voluntary dismissal as final for purposes of post-judgment relief. The ruling clarifies that Rule 60(b) relief is discretionary and distinct from appellate finality, ensuring courts retain flexibility to revisit cases when necessary. The Court reverses and remands for further proceedings. Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Read by RJ Dieken.…

1
Glossip v. Oklahoma (Criminal Trial) 11:41

for 11 dage siden11:41

11:41

Send us a text In Glossip v. Oklahoma , the Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant is entitled to a new trial when the prosecution knowingly fails to correct false testimony and that error could have contributed to the verdict. Richard Glossip was convicted and sentenced to death based primarily on the testimony of Justin Sneed, who claimed Glossip orchestrated the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese. Years later, newly discovered evidence revealed that the prosecution withheld key documents, allowed Sneed to give false testimony about his mental health history, and engaged in other misconduct. Oklahoma’s attorney general ultimately conceded that Glossip’s conviction was tainted and supported granting him a new trial, but the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the argument and upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution’s failure to correct Sneed’s false testimony violated Napue v. Illinois , which prohibits the government from allowing false evidence to go unchallenged. Given that Sneed’s credibility was central to Glossip’s conviction, the Court found a reasonable likelihood that the error influenced the jury and reversed the lower court’s decision, granting Glossip a new trial. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, with Justice Barrett joining in part. Justice Barrett also filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Alito, with Justice Barrett joining certain sections. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the decision. Read by Jeff Barnum.…

1
Lackey v. Stinnie (Section 1983 Fees) 7:45

for 11 dage siden7:45

7:45

Send us a text In Lackey v. Stinnie , the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who secure only preliminary injunctive relief before their case becomes moot do not qualify as "prevailing parties" entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b). Virginia drivers challenged the constitutionality of a law suspending licenses for unpaid court fines. After a district court granted a preliminary injunction, the Virginia General Assembly repealed the law, and restored licenses -- making the case moot. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts explains that preliminary injunctions do not constitute enduring, merits-based relief because they are temporary and do not resolve the case. The ruling reinforces prior precedents, including Buckhannon Board & Care Home v. West Virginia DHHR and Sole v. Wyner , requiring a judicially sanctioned, enduring change in the legal relationship between parties to qualify for attorney’s fees. The Court also notes that this decision does not apply to consent decrees, since that does provide lasting relief that's sanctioned by a court. The Court reverses the Fourth Circuit's en banc decision, emphasizing a bright-line rule to ensure clarity in fee disputes. Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Sotomayor.…

1
Williams v. Reed (Civil Rights) 5:03

for 12 dage siden5:03

5:03

Send us a text In Williams v. Reed , the Supreme Court rejects Alabama’s administrative-exhaustion rule, holding that states cannot require claimants to complete an allegedly delayed administrative process before filing a 42 U.S.C. §1983 lawsuit challenging that very delay. Writing for the Court, Justice Kavanaugh explains that the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision effectively immunized state officials from §1983 claims, contradicting prior precedents such as Felder v. Casey and Haywood v. Drown . The ruling clarifies that a state law cannot shield officials from federal civil rights litigation by erecting procedural roadblocks. The Court reverses and remands, rejecting arguments that alternative remedies like mandamus petitions justify Alabama’s exhaustion requirement. Justice Thomas dissents, joined in part by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett, arguing that the Court improperly disregards Alabama’s jurisdictional framework. Read by RJ Dieken.…

1
Wisconsin Bell v. US ex rel Heath (False Claims Act) 7:02

for 12 dage siden7:02

7:02

Send us a text In Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath , the Supreme Court unanimously affirms that E-Rate reimbursement requests qualify as “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA). The case centers on whether federal subsidies distributed through the E-Rate program—funded by contributions from telecommunications carriers and administered by a private corporation—constitute government-provided money for FCA purposes. Writing for the Court, Justice Kagan holds that because the government transferred over $100 million from the U.S. Treasury into the E-Rate fund, it “provided” a portion of the money requested, satisfying the statutory definition under 31 U.S.C. §3729(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I). The ruling rejects Wisconsin Bell’s argument that the government was merely an intermediary, emphasizing that the government actively collected, managed, and disbursed funds, akin to its broader fiscal operations. The decision affirms the Seventh Circuit and allows the FCA suit to proceed. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh each filed concurring opinions (both of whom signed onto one another's), and Justice Alito signed onto a portion of the Thomas concurrence.…

1
Hungary v. Simon 8:05

for 17 dage siden8:05

8:05

Send us a text In Republic of Hungary v. Simon , the Supreme Court held the mere allegation of commingling funds doesn't satisfy the commercial nexus requirement under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)’s expropriation exception. Holocaust survivors sued Hungary and its national railway, seeking damages for property seized during World War II, arguing that Hungary liquidated the property, commingled the proceeds with government funds, and later used some of those funds in U.S. commercial activities. The Court ruled that the FSIA requires plaintiffs to plausibly trace specific expropriated property or its direct proceeds to commercial activity in the United States. A broad commingling theory, doesn't meet this standard. The Court vacated the D.C. Circuit’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. Justice Sotomayor writing for a unanimous Court. Read by Jeff Barnum.…

1
Andrew v. White (Trial Evidence) 24:33

for 7 weeks siden24:33

24:33

Send us a text Andrew v. White In Andrew v. White , the Supreme Court reviewed the Tenth Circuit's decision to reject Brenda Andrew's due process challenge to her conviction for murder. Andrew was charged with murdering her husband -- at trial, the prosecution introduced prejudicial evidence with little probative value to the issue of her guilt. This included her sexual history, personal attire, and alleged failings as a wife and mother. The prosecution further elicited evidence meant to contrast this with her husband's character. On appeal, Andrew alleged that these irrelevant characteristics were meant to improperly impute the murder to her. The Tenth Circuit rejected her due process claim, but the Supreme Court disagreed. Though the decision below reasoned that there was no general rule that the wrongful admission of prejudicial evidence violates due process -- the Supreme Court disagreed. Relying on Payne v. Tennessee , the Court clarified that introducing inadmissible prejudicial evidence, may violate the Due Process Clause when it renders the trial fundamentally unfair. So, the case was remanded to the Tenth Circuit to determine whether the prosecution's inflammatory evidence materially affected the outcome of the trial. Per curiam decision. Justice Alito concurring. Justice Thomas dissenting. Read by RJ Dieken.…

1
TikTok v. Garland (Special Edition) 46:55

for 8 weeks siden46:55

46:55

Send us a text ***Special edition -- with no syllabus in this case -- the recording includes the entire per curiam decision, as well as the two concurring opinions.*** In TikTok Inc. v. Garland , the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The Act prohibits U.S. companies from providing services to TikTok unless its U.S. operations are separated from Chinese control. TikTok and a group of U.S. users argued that the Act constitutes a content-based restriction on speech because it singles out TikTok's platform, targeting the content it hosts and its unique mode of communication. They contended that such a restriction is subject to strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review, and that the government could not meet the burden of proving the law was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. TikTok asserted that less restrictive alternatives, such as data localization or transparency measures, could address any national security concerns without burdening free expression. The government countered that PAFACA is content-neutral, as its primary aim is to mitigate national security risks stemming from TikTok’s data collection practices and its connections to ByteDance Ltd., a Chinese-owned company potentially subject to Chinese government influence. The government maintained that the Act is a permissible regulation addressing the platform’s structural risks rather than the speech it hosts and argued that national security constitutes a significant governmental interest. The Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that PAFACA does not violate the First Amendment. It determined that the Act is content-neutral, targeting the ownership and control of TikTok rather than the content on its platform. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Court held that the Act was narrowly tailored to address well-substantiated national security concerns. The ruling emphasized Congress’s findings regarding the risks posed by TikTok’s data collection practices and its potential for misuse by a foreign adversary. The Court’s decision affirmed the legality of requiring ByteDance to divest its U.S. operations by January 19, 2025, or face a nationwide ban. Read the full decision here.…

1
E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera (Labor / Overtime Wages) 6:16

for 8 weeks siden6:16

6:16

Send us a text E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera (Decided January 15, 2025) In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera , the Supreme Court considered the standard of proof employers must meet to classify employees as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) overtime-pay provisions. The case arose when sales representatives sued E.M.D. Sales, alleging they were improperly denied overtime pay under the FLSA. E.M.D. argued that the employees were exempt as "outside salesmen," but the lower courts required "clear and convincing evidence" to prove the exemption. The Supreme Court held that the correct standard is the usual "preponderance of the evidence" used in civil litigation unless a statute or constitutional principle demands otherwise. The Court reversed and remanded, clarifying that the preponderance standard applies when an employer seeks to demonstrate an FLSA exemption. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, with a concurrence by Justice Gorsuch joined by Justice Thomas.…

1
Royal Canin USA Inc. v. Wullschleger (Federal Jurisdiction) 10:19

for 8 weeks siden10:19

10:19

Send us a text Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger (Decided January 15, 2025) In Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger , the Supreme Court addressed whether a federal court retains supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367 when a plaintiff amends their complaint to remove all federal claims after a case is removed to federal court. The case arose after Wullschleger sued Royal Canin in state court, asserting both federal and state claims. Following removal to federal court, Wullschleger amended her complaint, eliminating the federal claims and seeking remand to state court. The Court held that when federal claims are removed from an amended complaint, federal courts lose supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, requiring remand to state court. Justice Kagan, writing for a unanimous Court, emphasized that federal jurisdiction must be assessed based on the operative complaint. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.…

1
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (Immigration) 7:59

for 12 weeks siden7:59

7:59

Send us a text Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (Decided December 10, 2024) In Bouarfa v. Mayorkas , the Supreme Court addressed whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review the revocation of a previously approved visa petition under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The case involved Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, whose petition for her noncitizen spouse was revoked by USCIS upon suspicion of a prior sham marriage. The agency cited its authority under 8 U.S.C. §1155 to revoke approvals “for good and sufficient cause.” The Court unanimously held that the Secretary of Homeland Security’s revocation of a visa petition is a discretionary action falling under §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which precludes judicial review of such agency decisions. Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, emphasized that the broad statutory language granting discretion to revoke a visa petition reflects clear congressional intent to shield these decisions from court oversight. This ruling underscores Congress' authority to limit procedural protections in immigration matters when decisions are entrusted to agency discretion. Justice Jackson writing for a unanimous Court. Read by RJ Dieken.…

1
Moody v. NetChoice (Social Media / First Amendment) 15:17

for 31 weeks siden15:17

15:17

Send us a text Florida and Texas both enacted laws regulating social media companies and other online platforms. Netchoice alleges a facial challenge to the statutes under the First Amendment. Held: both judgments (of the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits) are vacated, as neither court conducted a proper analysis to the facial challenges under the First Amendment to these two laws. Read by Jeff Barnum.…

1
Trump v. United States (Presidential Immunity) 24:11

for 36 weeks siden24:11