October Term 2006 · Docket 05-1272
Can a whistleblower share in a fraud award without being an original source?
Rockwell International and the United States dispute whether a relator must be an original source to share in a False Claims Act award.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Mahoney argued the Tenth Circuit correctly denied the relator a share.
Ms. Vullo argued the relator is an original source under the statute.
Justice Scalia questioned if the government should also be barred from recovery if the relator is not an original source.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 23-47 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 23-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 37-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 37-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 39-23 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 39-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-19
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the False Claims Act. It asks if a relator must be an original source to share in a fraud award. The lower court denied the relator a share. The government disagrees with that result.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 37-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 37-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 39-23 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 39-23
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 5, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 45-49
What each side wants
Rockwell wants the court to deny the relator a share of the award.
The United States wants the court to allow the relator to share in the award.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 37-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 37-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 39-23 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 39-23
What each side says
Rockwell argues the relator lacked direct knowledge of the specific fraud.
The United States argues the relator qualifies as an original source under the statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 37-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 37-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 39-23 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 39-23
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked if a relator who knows of a plan can share in a different fraud.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if a relator can recover on a fraud found during an investigation of another fraud.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 23-47 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 23-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-19
Why it matters
This dispute defines who can share in fraud recoveries. It affects how whistleblowers report government fraud. It shapes the financial incentives for reporting illegal conduct.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 37-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 37-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 39-23 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 39-23
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 23-47 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 23-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-19
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 37-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 37-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 39-23 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 39-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 37-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 37-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 39-23 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 39-23
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.