Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1326_6jfl.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

UNITED STATES ET AL. EX REL. SCHUTTE ET AL. v. 
SUPERVALU INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 21–1326.  Argued April 18, 2023—Decided June 1, 2023* 

In these cases, petitioners have sued retail pharmacies under the False
Claims Act (FCA), 31 U. S. C. §3729 et seq.  The FCA permits private
parties  to  bring  lawsuits  in  the  name  of  the  United  States  against 
those  who  they  believe  have  defrauded  the  Federal  Government, 
§3730(b), and imposes liability on anyone who “knowingly” submits a 
“false” claim to the Government, §3729(a).  Here, petitioners claim that
respondents—SuperValu  and  Safeway—defrauded  two  federal  bene-
fits programs, Medicaid and Medicare.  Both Medicaid and Medicare 
offer prescription-drug coverage to their beneficiaries, and both often 
cap any reimbursement for drugs at the pharmacy’s “usual and cus-
tomary” charge to the public.  But, according to petitioners, SuperValu
and Safeway for years offered various pharmacy discount programs to 
their  customers—yet  reported  their higher  retail  prices,  rather  than 
their discounted prices.  Petitioners also presented evidence that the 
companies believed their discounted prices were their usual and cus-
tomary  prices  and  tried  to  prevent  regulators  and  contractors  from 
finding  out  about  their  discounted  prices.    In  sum,  petitioners  claim
that the evidence shows that respondents thought their claims were 
inaccurate yet submitted them anyway. 

Two essential elements of an FCA violation are (1) the falsity of the
claim  and  (2)  the  defendant’s  knowledge  of  the  claim’s  falsity.    The 
District Court ruled against SuperValu on the falsity element—finding 
that  its  discounted  prices  were  its  usual  and  customary  prices  and 

—————— 

* Together with No. 22–111, United States et al. ex rel. Proctor v. Safe-

way, Inc., also on certiorari to the same court.