Supreme Court justices probe whether E‑Rate reimbursements qualify as "claims" under False Claims Act

Summary

At oral argument in Wisconsin Bell v. United States ex rel. Tod Heath, petitioner argued E‑Rate reimbursements are privately held and insulated from the public fisc and thus fall outside the False Claims Act; the government urged the Court to treat the universal service fund and its administrator as government funds or agents, raising damages and scope questions.

The Supreme Court heard argument in Wisconsin Bell v. United States ex rel. Tod Heath over whether reimbursement requests under the E‑Rate/Universal Service programs are "claims" within the False Claims Act. Petitioner’s counsel, Miss Ho, told the justices the program was deliberately structured so that private carriers and a private administrator—not the Treasury—supply and hold the money, and therefore the government never "provides" funds that would trigger the FCA.

Miss Ho said the government "just collects and returns those funds to their private owner," comparing debt collection and settlements to a sheriff collecting a private judgment. She argued Congress and the FCC chose a funding design to insulate the public fisc, and that bookkeeping entries or OMB budget labels do not convert private monies into government funds for FCA purposes.

The United States, through respondent counsel Mister…

Supreme Court justices probe whether E‑Rate reimbursements qualify as "claims" under False Claims Act

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading