Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. U.S., ex rel. Heath (23-1127)

argument 23-1127

Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. U.S., ex rel. Heath

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 33m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the False Claims Act and how does it relate to the Wisconsin Bell E‑Rate case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case twenty three eleven twenty seven, Wisconsin Bell versus United States, ex rail Todd Heath. Ms. Hope?

Ms. Ho 0:10

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The False Claims Act, which casts its shadow over every aspect of the administrative state, has always been trained on guarding the public fisc. The FCA protects government funds by defining a claim as a request for money the government provides or that's presented to a government agent. As a result of political branch choices, E rate reimbursement requests check neither box. The programme could have been funded with public money and administered by a government agency. But the political branches chose private funding. and a private administrator to prevent e rate money from being used to mask budget shortfalls and to avoid the Government Corporation Control Act.

Ms. Ho 0:59

The consequence of those choices is that E rate reimbursement requests aren't FCA claims. First, the government doesn't provide any money in the E rate program. Text, context, structure and history all confirm that the government provides money for FCA purposes only if it supplies money from its own funds, putting the public fiscal at risk. That never happened here. The government doesn't provide money by making one private party pay another private party, and the government doesn't provide money by collecting debts owed to a private party and in which the government has no financial stake. Second, the program's private administrator, the administrative company, isn't a government agent. By design it lacks power to bind the government, which in turn lacks control over what matters here.

Ms. Ho 1:53

grants of E-rate reimbursement requests. In fact, we know the company can't be a government agent because if it were, it would violate the Government Corporation Control Act. Choices have consequences, and the choices made by the political branches to insulate the E rate program from the public fiscal foreclose applying the FCA. I welcome the court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:16

Uh Ms. Ho, uh could you focus uh just briefly on the one hundred million dollars that the government uh says uh it contributes or provides. Uh that much of that is collected under a debt collection provision. that authorizes the government to collect its a debt owed to it. uh that seems somewhat at odds with your argument that it's not the government's money. It how could it be collected? uh under that act if it is not owed to the government. And if if it is owed to the government, then why isn't it the government's money after that?

Ms. Ho 3:00

Yes, Justice Thomas. And let me answer both parts of your question. Let me begin by addressing the debt settlement and restitution. Um, those funds are no different than the e-rate contributions themselves. They are owed to the administrative company. Uh the United States just collects and returns those funds to their private owner. Um a a a good analogy is like child support. Um like a parent provides child support even when the United States withholds from the parent's income. and sends to the other parent, the private telecom carriers provide E-rate funds even when the United States collects their delinquent debts. Just like when a private litigant uses a sheriff to go after a property to pay judgment.

Ms. Ho 3:47

Now let Justice Harms, let me uh let address directly your question about the debt collection improvement act. And those uh debts don't belong to the government. even under the Debt Collection Improvement Act for three reasons. Number one, that's a different statutory scheme. With different language. That's the Blanca case from the Tenth Circuit that we cite in our brief. The FCA limits a claim to money that the United States provides, and the Debt Collection Improvement Act defines claim more expansively without regard to its effect on the public fisc. And number two, relatedly, the Debt Collection Improvement Act applies to funds that The United States is authorized by statute to collect for the benefit of any person.

Ms. Ho 4:36

That is Section 3701B1D. So money belongs to the person for whose benefit the government collects it.