Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 845

529US3

Unit: $U59

[09-26-01 12:32:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

770

VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES v.
UNITED STATES ex rel. STEVENS
Opinion of the Court

to 25 percent if the Government intervenes (depending upon
the relator’s contribution to the prosecution), and from 25
to 30 percent if it does not (depending upon the court’s
assessment of what is reasonable)—plus attorney’s fees and
costs.

§§ 3730(d)(1)–(2).

Respondent Jonathan Stevens brought this qui tam ac-
tion in the United States District Court for the District
of Vermont against petitioner Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources, his former employer, alleging that it had sub-
mitted false claims to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in connection with various federal grant programs
administered by the EPA. Speciﬁcally, he claimed that peti-
tioner had overstated the amount of time spent by its em-
ployees on the federally funded projects, thereby inducing
the Government to disburse more grant money than peti-
tioner was entitled to receive. The United States declined
to intervene in the action. Petitioner then moved to dis-
miss, arguing that a State (or state agency) is not a “person”
subject to liability under the FCA and that a qui tam action
in federal court against a State is barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. The District Court denied the motion in an
unpublished order. App. to Pet. for Cert. 86–87. Peti-
tioner then ﬁled an interlocutory appeal,2 and the District
Court stayed proceedings pending its outcome. Respondent
United States intervened in the appeal in support of re-
spondent Stevens. A divided panel of the Second Circuit
afﬁrmed, 162 F. 3d 195 (1998), and we granted certiorari,
527 U. S. 1034 (1999).

2 The denial of a motion to dismiss based on a claim of Eleventh Amend-
ment immunity is immediately appealable. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct
and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139 (1993). The
Second Circuit exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over the statutory
question. See Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U. S. 35, 50–51
(1995).