October Term 2009 · Docket 08-304

Does the False Claims Act bar suits based on state audits?

The dispute centers on whether state-generated reports count as public disclosures under federal fraud law.

Official caption
Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Browning argued the word administrative excludes state sources.

    Mr. Hallward-Driemeier argued federal terms imply a federal scope.

    Mr. Hurt argued the text compels the Fourth Circuit result.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the scope of the False Claims Act's public disclosure bar. the sides that brought the case argue state audits fall outside the federal definition. the opposing sides claim the statute covers all public sources.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 30, 2009.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to limit the bar to federal sources only.

the opposing sides want the Court to include state audits in the bar.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the text restricts the bar to federal agencies.

the opposing sides argue the statutory purpose covers all public disclosures.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if a state hearing could immunize fraud.

Justice Scalia questioned whether documents count as a hearing.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines which public records block private fraud suits. It shapes the balance between state oversight and federal enforcement.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON