October Term 2015 · Docket 15-7

Does a false certification of compliance make a claim fraudulent?

The dispute centers on whether a claim is fraudulent if it omits a known violation of a material payment condition.

Official caption
Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States
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.
  2. — 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

    the side that brought the case argued the statute requires explicit false statements. It cited the unchanged language from 1863.

    The government argued a claim is fraudulent if it omits a known material breach. It cited the duty to disclose violations.

    Justice Breyer questioned if common law contract principles apply to this statutory interpretation.

    Justice Kagan posed a hypothetical involving an explicit contract term requiring doctor care.

    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

This case tests the scope of the False Claims Act. It asks if a claim is false when it fails to disclose a known breach of a material contract term.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 19, 2016.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the lower court finding overturned. It argues the statute requires an explicit false statement.

The government wants the lower court finding upheld. It argues a claim is fraudulent if it omits a known material breach.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the statute targets explicit false statements. It contends common law contract principles do not apply here.

The government argues a claim is false if it omits a known violation. It contends this omission renders the claim fraudulent.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Breyer asked if an implicit assumption of doctor-provided services could be a material breach.

Justice Kagan asked if an explicit term requiring doctor care changes the analysis of a false claim.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between a valid claim and a fraudulent one. It determines when silence about a breach constitutes fraud. The outcome shapes how companies report compliance to the government. It affects the financial liability of businesses in federal contracts.

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