Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Courtās short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath.
The Supreme Court addressed whether E-Rate reimbursement requests qualify as 'claims' under the False Claims Act (FCA). The Court found that the government provided a portion of the funds through Treasury transfers, enabling the FCA suit to proceed. The decision affirms the Seventh Circuit's ruling that the government played a significant role in funding the E-Rate program.
Holding
The single most important ābottom lineā of what the Court decided in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath.
The Court held that E-Rate reimbursement requests are 'claims' under the FCA because the government provided a portion of the money through Treasury transfers.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Spending Power is relevant to Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath
The case involves the government's role in providing funds for the E-Rate program, which implicates Congress's authority to tax and spend for the general welfare.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)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.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath
The Court is exercising its power to review and interpret the application of the False Claims Act in the context of the E-Rate program.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: 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.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath that support the summary and concepts above.
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.
Heath's FCA suit to proceed.
Wisconsin Bell argues that even the $100 million was provided only by the carriers, with the Government playing no more than an intermediary role.
