Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Todd Heath

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Todd Heath
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: November 4, 2024
Decided: February 21, 2025
Outcome
affirmed and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Brett Kavanaugh

Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Todd Heath is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 21, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 4, 2024.

In a 9-0 opinion, the court affirmed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the E-Rate reimbursement requests listed are claims under the FCA because by transferring more than $100 million into the Universal Service Fund, the government provided at least a portion of the money applied for.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support program, known as the E-rate program, created to improve universal access to telecommunications for eligible schools and libraries by providing discounted services. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the E-rate program are 'claims' under the False Claims Act."[2]
  • The outcome: In a unanimous decision, the court affirmed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the E-Rate reimbursement requests listed are claims under the FCA because by transferring more than $100 million into the Universal Service Fund, the government provided at least a portion of the money applied for.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: Wisconsin Bell, Inc.
      • Legal counsel: Helgi C. Walker (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)
    • Respondent: United States, ex rel. Todd Heath
      • Legal counsel: David J. Chizewer (Goldberg Kohn Ltd.)

    The following summary of the case was published by SCOTUSblog:[4]

    “

    In Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath, the telecom company renews its contention that reimbursement requests submitted to the E-rate program are not “claims” under the False Claims Act because they don’t implicate federal funding, and it argues that the decision conflicts with the law of the 5th Circuit.[5]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the E-rate program are 'claims' under the False Claims Act.[5] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    In a 9-0 opinion, the court affirmed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the E-Rate reimbursement requests listed are claims under the FCA because by transferring more than $100 million into the Universal Service Fund, the government provided at least a portion of the money applied for. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the majority opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:[1]

    “

    The E-Rate reimbursement requests at issue are “claims” under the FCA because the Government “provided” (at a minimum) a “portion” of the money applied for by transferring more than $100 million from the Treasury into the Fund. §3729(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I). The question is whether the Government “provided”—in ordinary meaning, supplied, furnished, or made available—any portion of the money sought. While the parties (mirroring the Seventh Circuit’s opinion) discuss two independent theories under which the Government potentially “provided” the requested funds, here it is enough that the Government provided some E-Rate moneys through the Treasury’s own transfer of over $100 million into the Fund. That amount consisted of delinquent contributions that the FCC and Treasury Department collected from carriers, as well as civil settlements and criminal restitution payments from Justice Department activities in response to wrongdoing in the E-Rate program. The Government therefore “provided [a] portion of the money” disbursed from the Fund to reimburse E-Rate program participants.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Elena Kagan

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Thomas

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito who joined as to Part I.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    I join the Court’s opinion in full because it correctly holds that, for purposes of the False Claims Act (FCA), the Federal Government ‘provides’ money to the Education Rate (E-Rate) program when the Government itself collects overdue contributions, interest, penalties, settlements, and restitution payments, and then transfers that money from U. S. Treasury accounts into the E-Rate program. See 31 U. S. C. §3729(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I). The Court saves for another day two more difficult questions: First, whether the Government ‘provides’ the money that it requires private carriers to contribute to the E-Rate program, see ibid.; and second, whether the E-Rate program’s administrator is an agent of the United States. I express no definitive views on those questions today. I write separately only to highlight that the Government’s positions on these questions might, if accepted, have significant implications for both the scope of the FCA and the lawfulness of the E-Rate program.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[1]

    “

    I join the Court’s opinion, which decides a narrow statutory question regarding the scope of the False Claims Act. That statutory issue arises in the context of a qui tam suit. The Act’s qui tam provisions raise substantial constitutional questions under Article II. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U. S. 419, 442 (2023) (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring); id., at 449–452 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Those constitutional questions are not before the Court in this case. But in an appropriate case, the Court should consider the competing arguments on the Article II issue.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 U.S. Supreme Court, "Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Todd Heath," February 21, 2025
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-1127 WISCONSIN BELL, INC. V. UNITED STATES, EX REL. HEATH," June 17, 2024
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 23-824," accessed August 13, 2024
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Six cases to look out for," June 13, 2024
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, United States ex rel. Heath v. Wis. Bell," August 2, 2023
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued November 4, 2024
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued November 5, 2024
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wisconsin_Bell,_Inc._v._United_States,_ex_rel._Todd_Heath&oldid=10260071"