ABA Banking Journal
No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive
SUBSCRIBE
ABA Banking Journal
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
ADVERTISEMENT
Home Uncategorized

Supreme Court upholds government authority to dismiss False Claims Act cases

July 5, 2023
Reading Time: 3 mins read
Supreme Court upholds government authority to dismiss False Claims Act cases

False Claims Act
United States, ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources Inc.
Date: June 16, 2023

Issue: Whether the federal government has authority to dismiss whistleblower False Claims Act (FCA) cases regardless of when it intervenes.

Case Summary: In an 8-1 decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the federal government retains authority to dismiss whistleblower FCA cases at any time once it intervenes.

In 2012, Jesse Polansky filed a qui tam action suing Executive Health Resources (EHR). A qui tam action allows a private person, known as a relator, to prosecute a lawsuit for the government and receive a reward. Polansky alleged EHR helped hospitals overbill Medicare. Polansky accused EHR of routinely certifying inpatient care for services charged to government healthcare programs, which should have been processed as less expensive outpatient care. Under the FCA, relators such as Polansky must file complaints under seal and serve a copy with supporting evidence on the government. The government then has 60 days (which could extend for good cause) to decide whether to intervene and proceed with the action. The government declined to intervene during the seal period of the case, and the case spent years in discovery.

In 2019, the government moved to dismiss after it determined the varied burdens of the suit outweighed its potential value. Under FCA § 3730(c)(2)(A), the government may dismiss a qui tam action despite the relator’s objections. The district court granted the dismissal, finding the government thoroughly investigated the costs and benefits and derived a valid conclusion. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed. The Third Circuit considered whether the government had authority to dismiss an action if it declined to intervene during the seal period. The Third Circuit ruled the government retains the authority to dismiss the case at any time once it intervenes.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit’s decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan declared: “The government may seek dismissal of an FCA action over a relator’s objection so long as it intervened sometime in the litigation, whether at the outset or afterward.” In the majority’s view, a “straightforward reading” of the FCA refutes Polansky’s argument that the government forfeited its right to seek dismissal after initially declining to intervene. The majority explained the FCA allows the government to intervene early on and also “at a later date upon showing of good cause.” At that point, the government assumes primary responsibility for the case, including the right to dismiss it. The majority emphasized the government’s interest in a qui tam action is “the predominant one,” and this interest does not diminish in importance because the government waited to intervene.

Additionally, the majority agreed with the Third Circuit that Federal Rule 41(a) provides the standard of review for a motion to dismiss. The majority explained under Rule 41(a), “If the government offers a reasonable argument for why the burdens of contin­ued litigation outweigh its benefits, the court should grant the motion. And that is so even if the relator presents a credible assessment to the contrary.” The majority rejected the government’s position that it had “essentially unfettered discretion to dismiss.” The majority also rejected Polansky’s proposal of a “complicated form of arbitrary-and-capricious review.” Polansky proposed for the government to have primary control of the action if it intervenes in the seal period, while the relator would have primary control if the intervention occurs later. According to the majority, “the Third Circuit’s Goldilocks position is the legally right one,” and a district court should assess a FCA Section (2)(A) motion to dismiss using Rule 41’s standards.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas stated the FCA’s text and structure “afford the government no power to unilaterally dismiss a pending qui tam action after it has declined to take over the action from the relator at its outset.” Thomas also argued qui tam suits violate Article II. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a one-paragraph concurrence joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, expressed agreement with Thomas’ view. Justice Kavanaugh concluded there are substantial arguments that the qui tam device is inconsistent with Article II, and that private relators may not represent the interests of the United States in litigation.

Bottom Line: The Court’s decision confirms the government has wide latitude to dismiss an FCA suit when litigation is not in the government’s interest.

Documents: Opinion

ADVERTISEMENT
Tags: Banking Docket
ShareTweetPin

Related Posts

Compliance question of the month: February 2025

Compliance question of the month: May 2025

Uncategorized
May 19, 2025

Compliance QOTM answers question on disclosure for large deposits under Regulation CC (Expedited Funds Availability Act).

Recent news from Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control: April 5

Recent news from Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control: May 19

Uncategorized
May 19, 2025

The Office of Foreign Assets Control announced the following sanctions action.

Recent news from Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control: April 5

Recent news from Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control: May 5

Uncategorized
May 5, 2025

The Office of Foreign Assets Control announced the following sanctions action last week.

Fourth Circuit rules 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union not liable for fraudulent transfer

Fourth Circuit rules 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union not liable for fraudulent transfer

Uncategorized
May 1, 2025

In a 3-0 decision, a Fourth Circuit panel ruled that financial institutions are not liable for fund transfers where the beneficiary name and account number do not match, unless the institution knew the mismatch at the time of...

ABA, trade groups file amicus brief supporting Bank of America in National Bank Act preemption lawsuit

Bank of America to pay FDIC $540M for allegedly underpaid premiums

Uncategorized
May 1, 2025

A Washington D.C. federal court granted the FDIC partial summary judgment, ruling that Bank of America must pay $540 million for allegedly underpaying its quarterly premiums from 2013 to 2014.

Fifth Circuit grants ABA mandamus, vacates transfer order for second time

D.C. Circuit panel modifies its partial stay, bars CFPB mass layoffs

Uncategorized
May 1, 2025

Following the evidentiary hearing, the court will determine whether the CFPB violated the preliminary injunction. In the meantime, the bureau is barred from carrying out its RIF.

NEWSBYTES

#PracticeSafeChecks campaign wins two Telly Awards

May 21, 2025

Proposed amendment would add credit card rate cap to Senate stablecoin bill

May 21, 2025

ABA, associations urge senators to reject adding credit card routing mandates to stablecoin bill

May 21, 2025

SPONSORED CONTENT

Choosing the Right Account Opening Platform: 10 Key Considerations for Long-Term Success

Choosing the Right Account Opening Platform: 10 Key Considerations for Long-Term Success

April 25, 2025
Outsourcing: Getting to Go/No-Go

Outsourcing: Getting to Go/No-Go

April 5, 2025
Six Payments Trends Driving the Future of Transactions

Six Payments Trends Driving the Future of Transactions

March 15, 2025
AI for Banks: A Starter Guide for Community and Regional Institutions

AI for Banks: A Starter Guide for Community and Regional Institutions

March 1, 2025

PODCASTS

Podcast: Accelerating banking for quick-service restaurants

May 8, 2025

How a Georgia community bank supports government-guaranteed lending nationwide

May 1, 2025

Podcast: Quantum computing’s shakeup in payments, cybersecurity

April 24, 2025
ADVERTISEMENT

American Bankers Association
1333 New Hampshire Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
1-800-BANKERS (800-226-5377)
www.aba.com
About ABA
Privacy Policy
Contact ABA

ABA Banking Journal
About ABA Banking Journal
Media Kit
Advertising
Subscribe

© 2025 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive

© 2025 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.