Supreme Court Notebook

FOIA disclosures may bar False Claims Act suit BOSTON, MA -- A federal agency's response to a Freedom of Information Act request is a "report" within the meaning of the False Claims Act's public disclosure bar, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-3 decision. The ruling reverses a decision from the 2nd Circuit. The plaintiff filed a False Claims Act suit against a federal contractor, alleging that the company failed to meet a statutory obligation to report the number of veterans it employed to the U.S. Department of Labor. The contractor argued that the lawsuit was precluded by the Act's public disclosure bar because it was based in large part on information the plaintiff obtained after submitting requests to the Department of Labor under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Court agreed that the written responses obtained by the plaintiff as the result of his FOIA request fell within the plain meaning of a "report" under the False Claims Act's public disclosure bar. "The other sources of public disclosure in §3730(e)(4)(A) [of the False Claims Act], especially 'news media,' suggest that the public disclosure bar provides 'a broa[d] sweep.' The statute also mentions 'administrative hearings' twice, reflecting intent to avoid underinclusiveness even at the risk of redundancy," the Court said. It remanded the matter for a determination of whether the plaintiff's lawsuit was in fact based on the responses to his FOIA requests. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the decision. U.S. Supreme Court. Schindler Elevator v. U.S. ex rel. Kirk, No. 10-188. May 16, 2011. Lawyers USA No. 993-2904. District court lacks authority to order change in pension plan BOSTON, MA -- While a district court can order a plan administrator to enforce the terms of a pension plan under ERISA, it does not have the authority to order that the terms of the plan be reformed, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. The plaintiffs in the case brought a class action under §502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against CIGNA Corp., claiming that the company retroactively changed its pension plan in a way that caused them to lose some of the value they accrued under the old plan. A summary plan description (SPD) sent by CIGNA to employees stated that under the new plan, their benefits "would continue to grow every year." It did not disclose that some employees would be affected by losses. A federal district court held that CIGNA had violated ERISA's disclosure requirements by failing to disclose the effects of the change, and found that the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefits under the old plan, plus benefits accrued under the new plan. Noting that the case was one of first impression, the court stayed judgment to allow the parties to appeal to the 2nd Circuit for guidance. But the 2nd Circuit summarily affirmed the ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated and reversed, finding that the district court had exceeded its authority under ERISA. "The District Court ordered relief in two steps," Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote. "Step 1: It ordered the terms of the plan reformed... Step 2: It ordered the plan administrator (which it found to be CIGNA) to enforce the plan as reformed." The second step is clearly authorized by the statute, Breyer wrote. "But what about step 1? Where does §502(a)(1)(B) grant a court the power to change the terms of the plan as they previously existed? The statutory language speaks of 'enforc[ing]' the "terms of the plan," not of changing them." (Emphasis in original). The decision was unanimous, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor taking no part in the case's consideration. U.S. Supreme Court. CIGNA v. Amara, No. 09-804. May 16, 2011. Lawyers USA No. 993-2903. Retired U.S. Supreme Court justice: bin Laden killing legally ok BOSTON, MA -- Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who has remained a vocal opinionator after stepping down from the Supreme Court in 2010, said he backed the order by President Barack Obama for the covert mission that led the location and killing of al Qaeda terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. While justices currently sitting on the Court are unlikely to discuss the bin Laden operation, since any challenge to the president's order could land before the Court, Stevens has no such restriction, and said during a speech at Northwestern University in Chicago that he believed the killing of bin Laden was justified despite the fact that the terrorist leader was unarmed. Stevens called bin Laden "an enemy who had been trying every day to attack the United States." "I haven't the slightest doubt it was entirely appropriate for American forces to act" as they did, Stevens said according to CNN. "It was not merely to do justice and avenge September 11." Court to decide liability of private prison employees BOSTON, MA -- The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a federal prison inmate has an implied cause of action for a violation of his constitutional rights against the employees of a private company that operates the facility. The Court will review a decision from the 9th Circuit allowing the Bivens claims of an inmate at a federal prison in California. A private company operated the prison under a contract with the government. The plaintiff alleged that seven employees of the private contractor violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide him with appropriate medical treatment for injuries suffered in a fall. The defendants argued that a Bivens claim cannot be maintained against the employees of a private company. But the 9th Circuit held that the defendant could be considered federal agents acting under color of federal law for the purpose of a Bivens claim. The court said that there was "no principled basis" to distinguish the activities of the private employees in this case from governmental action. "[The plaintiff] could seek medical care only from the [contractor's] employees and any other private physicians [the contractor] employed. If those employees demonstrated deliberate indifference to [the plaintiff's] serious medical needs, the resulting deprivation was caused, in the sense relevant for the federal-action inquiry, by the federal government's exercise of its power to punish [the plaintiff] by incarceration and to deny him a venue independent of the federal government to obtain needed medical care," the court said. It noted a contrary decision from the 4th Circuit. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected next term. Minneci v. Pollard, No. 10-1104.Certiorari granted: May 16, 2011. Ruling below: 629 F. 3d. 843 (9th Cir. 2010). Published: Thu, May 19, 2011