Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States Ex Rel. Heath
No. 23-1127 · Decided February 21, 2025 · affirmed and remanded
Does a reimbursement request for the E-Rate program qualify as a "claim" under the False Claims Act (FCA)? E-Rate reimbursement requests are "claims" under the False Claims Act because the Government provided a portion of the requested money by transferring over $100 million from the U.S. Treasury into the Fund.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT · Argued November 4, 2024
Parties — Petitioner: WISCONSIN BELL, INC. · Respondent: UNITED STATES ex rel. HEATH
Vote & lineup9–0 (unanimous) on the judgment. Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court (9). Concurrence(s): Thomas (joined by Kavanaugh, Alito); Kavanaugh (joined by Thomas).
Who prevailed — The respondent prevailed on the issue of whether E-Rate reimbursement requests qualify as "claims" under the False Claims Act, allowing the fraud suit to proceed.
The question

Does a reimbursement request for the E-Rate program qualify as a "claim" under the False Claims Act (FCA)? Specifically, does such a request meet the requirement of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) that the Government "provide[ ] or ha[ve] provided any portion of the money" requested? The Court must determine if funds collected from private carriers and managed by a private corporation can be considered "provided" by the Government.

Petitioner's argument
  • An E-Rate reimbursement request cannot qualify as a "claim" because the Government does not provide any portion of the money requested.
  • All money in the E-Rate program is private rather than federal because it consists of contributions from private carriers and is handled by a private non-profit corporation.
  • The Government's role is merely that of an intermediary or facilitator, which does not amount to "providing" money under the FCA.
  • The Government did not have title to the funds during the interim period when it transferred them to the Fund.
Respondent's argument
  • E-Rate reimbursement requests are "claims" because the Government provides funding through its regulatory role in the collection and distribution of contributions.
  • The Government provided a portion of the money by directly transferring more than $100 million from the U.S. Treasury into the Fund.
  • Under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A), it is immaterial whether the United States has title to the money when assessing if the Government provided the funds.
The decision
  • The Court held that E-Rate reimbursement requests are "claims" under the FCA because the Government provided at least a "portion" of the requested money.
  • Applying the ordinary meaning of "provide," the Court defined the term as to "supply," "furnish," or "make available," citing the *American Heritage Dictionary* and *Oxford English Dictionary*.
  • The Court found that the U.S. Treasury transferred over $100 million into the Fund, consisting of delinquent contributions collected by the FCC and Treasury Department, as well as civil settlements and criminal restitution from Justice Department activities.
  • The Court rejected petitioner's characterization of the Government as a passive intermediary, noting that the Government "generated" these funds by extracting them from carriers and prosecuting wrongdoing in the program.
  • Even if viewed as an intermediary, the Court reasoned that a transmitter—such as a bank teller or UPS driver—still "provides" the item to the recipient.
  • The Court relied on 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A), which explicitly states that it is immaterial "whether or not the United States has title to the money" when determining if the Government provided the funds.
  • Because the FCA only requires that the Government provide "any portion" of the amount requested, the $100 million transfer was sufficient regardless of whether other program funds were private.
Separate opinions
Thomas, concurring (joined by Kavanaugh, Alito)
  • Argues that if the Court ever adopts the Government's broader theory—that requiring private parties to pay others constitutes "providing" money—it could expand the FCA to cover child support payments under 42 U.S.C. § 659(a), federal court money judgments, and health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a)).
  • Contends that if the Administrative Company is an "agent of the United States," the program might violate the Government Corporation Control Act (GCCA), 31 U.S.C. § 9102, which prohibits creating government corporations without specific congressional authorization.
Kavanaugh, concurring (joined by Thomas)
  • Argues that while not before the Court in this case, the *qui tam* provisions of the FCA raise substantial constitutional questions under Article II, citing *United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.*
Read the full opinion on supremecourt.gov (PDF) →