This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Graham County Soil and Water Conservation District (Petitioners), the case concerns whether a relator can copy a State report or a State criminal indictment and then proceed with a qui tam action.
Background and question before the Court
According to Graham County Soil and Water Conservation District (Petitioners), petitioners warn that allowing a relator to copy a State report or criminal indictment could lead to a proliferation of opportunistic qui tam actions.
Justice Alito asked whether an administrative report must be generated by a government unit or could be a university administration report.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy inquired whether a qui tam action could be brought for the portion of damages that a county does not seek in its own suit.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Graham County Soil and Water Conservation District (Petitioners), if the Court holds that a relator can simply copy a State report or criminal indictment, there will be a proliferation of opportunistic qui tam actions.
Respondent Position
According to Respondent, the first category is clearly adjudicative in nature; the second is non‑adjudicative; the third category is news media and stands on its own.
Amicus Curiae Position
According to United States (amicus curiae), the phrase at issue is federal in nature, as shown by the text and the doctrine of noscitur a sociis.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Alito asked whether an administrative report must be generated by a government unit or could be a university administration report.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy inquired about the possibility of a qui tam action for damages not sought by a county in its own suit.
Justice Breyer asked whether the 1986 amendment’s legislative history ever uses the word “State.”
Justice Scalia asked for clarification on what Congress had in mind.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor questioned why reports in the government’s possession cannot protect the government, unlike news media reports.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts noted that the case was submitted at 11:04 a.m.
- [1] 047c5bedd4dd259cbc64-r1-04b787c5e680cdeb.pdf, p. 9
- [2] 047c5bedd4dd259cbc64-r1-04b787c5e680cdeb.pdf, p. 20
- [3] 047c5bedd4dd259cbc64-r1-04b787c5e680cdeb.pdf, p. 38
- [4] 047c5bedd4dd259cbc64-r1-04b787c5e680cdeb.pdf, p. 39
- [5] 047c5bedd4dd259cbc64-r1-04b787c5e680cdeb.pdf, p. 46
- [6] 047c5bedd4dd259cbc64-r1-04b787c5e680cdeb.pdf, p. 55
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The Court’s interpretation will affect whether states and local governments can be shielded from qui tam liability and will have fiscal implications for the Federal government.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 047c5bedd4dd259cbc64-r1-04b787c5e680cdeb.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.