Legal Document

520 U.S. 939117 S.Ct. 1871138 L.Ed.2d 135 HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES, ex rel. William J. SCHUMER. No. 95-1340. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Feb. 25, 1997. Decided June 16, Syllabus * In 1989, respondent Schumer filed an action against petitioner Hughes Aircraft Company under qui tam provision False Claims Act (FCA), which permits, in certain circumstances, suits by private parties on behalf anyone submitting a false claim to Government. Hughes' allegedly claims were submitted between 1982 and 1984. Prior 1986, barred if information they based was already Government's possession. A 1986 amendment, however, permits possession, except where suit is publicly disclosed not brought original source information. moved dismiss, contending, inter alia, that amendment retroactive, effect when engaged its wrongful conduct precluded because it had The District denied motion, but ultimately granted summary judgment merits. appealed judgment, cross-appealed from denial motion dismiss. Ninth Circuit rejected cross-appeal, holding should be applied retroactively pre-1986 involved only courts' subject-matter jurisdiction hear did affect defendants' substantive liability. Finding, further, court reversed part remanded for further consideration Held: Because does apply regarding prior enactment, this have been dismissed, as required version FCA. Pp. ____-____. (a) This applies time-honored presumption retroactive legislation unless Congress has clearly manifested intent contrary. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 244, 268, 114 1483, 1498-1499, 128 229. Nothing evidences clear retroactively. Thus, Landgraf' s analysis, effect, then will alleged here, occurred before effective date. P. 1876. (b) Schumer's contention lacks rejected. His argument impose new duties with respect transactions completed unlawful knowingly submit since 1863 made, rejected, Landgraf, U.S., at 281-282, S.Ct., 1505-1506. He also mistaken contending change substance extant cause action. By eliminating defense suit-prior disclosure Government-the attaches disability or considerations past. Id., 269, 1499. Nor case create As himself recognizes, extended FCA circumstances previously foreclosed. extension insignificant. Qui relators are motivated primarily prospects monetary reward rather than public good and, thus, less likely Government forego involving technical violation no harm fisc. essentially creates action, just increased likelihood existing pursued. See, e.g., Winfree Northern Pacific R. Co., 227 296, 302, 33 273, 274, 57 L.Ed. 518. Before completely disclosure. would revive subjecting foreclosed litigation. Finally, errs jurisdictional hence, exception general retroactivity. Statutes merely addressing may meet conditions presumption, regulate secondary litigation underlying primary parties. However, speaks parties' rights creating none existed; therefore subject 63 F.3d 1512 (C.A.9 1995), vacated remanded. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Kenneth W. Starr, Washington, DC, petitioner. Laurence Gold, respondent. Seth Waxman, amicus curiae special leave Justice THOMAS 1 (FCA Act), 31 U.S.C. §3730(b), such At issue whether partially removing bar enactment so, particular meets requirements amended Act. We hold 2 December 1981, Northrop Corporation awarded subcontract design develop radar system B-2 bomber, constructing contract Air Force. Both Northrop's Force's "cost-plus'' contracts, provided subcontractor contractor, respectively, reimbursed all costs properly incurred plus reasonable profit. Several months after subcontract, McDonnell-Douglas "fixed-price'' upgraded F-15 fighter aircraft, building (Under fixed-price contract, receive set price, regardless costs). When became apparent projects overlapped significant respects, adopted two internal "commonality agreements'' allocating divisions various common projects. 3 After program escalated, requested audit accounting practices ascertain improperly shifted cost-plus subcontract. Force initially concluded, preliminary classified report, billed development charged solely program. Between October September 1988, Defense Contract Audit Agency prepared series unclassified reports similarly concluding misallocated programs, adequately company's commonality Cost Accounting Standards report Based those audits, directed withhold $15.4 million payments Hughes.1 4 On January 20, Schumer, formerly Division Contracts Manager Division, commenced pursuant authorizes individuals, "relators,'' bring any person who presented fraudulent §3729. complaint mischarged Northrop-and through States-for allocated instead Northrop. App. 72-80. resulted $50 net overcharge, sought treble damages amount $150 million. 102.2 5 dismiss possessed See §3730(b)(4) (1982 ed.). argued alternative even "based upon allegations . a[n] administrative audit,'' within meaning §3730(e)(4)(A).3 motion. 6 merits, fully basis cost customers complied applicable contractual regulatory relating allocation. full briefing, concluded some programs consistent disclosures made Northrop, Pet. Cert. 46a, other could alone (thereby benefitting Government), id., 50a, contents agreements Force, 46a-48a, 56a. Accordingly, held "Schumer shown violated Act.'' 64a. 7 grant him, defenses "subject matter jurisdiction'' courts liability defendants. 1512, 1517 1995). determined "public disclosure'' made. 1518. material factual dispute existed misleading incomplete about agreements, 1522-1525. 8 petition certiorari consider release audits employees constituted fisc essential element 519 ----, 117 293, 136 212 (1996). we conclude lower express Circuit's fisc'' holdings, merits respondent's contentions. II 9 time, district "dismiss [a tam] evidence brought.'' accepted, dispute, "the government aware [respondent's] he his suit, [1982 provision] claim,'' applicable. F.3d, 1517. 10 permit §3730(e)(4)(A). commenced, contends it, provision, controls. disagree. 11 frequently noted, recently reaffirmed, there "presumption [that] deeply rooted our jurisprudence.'' 265, 1497, 229 (1994). "The "principle legal ordinarily assessed law took place timeless universal appeal.''' Ibid. (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. Bonjorno, 494 827, 855, 110 1570, 1586, 108 842 (1990) (SCALIA, concurring)). 1498-1499. 12 retroactively, one suggests otherwise. analysis presume case, date.4 13 Respondent argues fit Story's "influential definition'' impermissibly legislation, quoted approval Landgraf: 14 ""[E]very statute, takes away impairs vested acquired laws, obligation, imposes duty, disability, past, must deemed retrospective.''' 1499 Society Propagation Gospel Wheeler, 22 F. Cas. 756, 767 (No. 13,156) (C.C.N.H.1814) (Story, J.)). 15 To extent statutes these effects retroactivity, simply misreads Landgraf. language relies purport define outer limit impermissible Rather, like Story, described sufficient, necessary, condition invoking Indeed, recognized used formulations describe "functional conceptio[n] legislative "retroactivity,''' suggestion formulation exclusive definition presumptively legislation. 16 event, applying formulation, reject effect. first ""impose completed''' because, 1863, payment States.'' Brief supra, 280, 1505). same There, noted 1991 Civil Rights authorizing compensatory "does make lawful occurred,'' " [n]onetheless'' operate "retrospectively' occurring before'' 1505-1506; see Rivers Roadway Express, Inc., 298, 303, 1510, 1514-1515, 274 (1994) (holding increase though "normative scope Title VII's prohibition workplace discrimination'' altered). 17 DP1SRespondent next Amendments do before, alter defendant's exposure single penny [and] thus d[o] "increase party's past conduct.''' Amicus Curiae 13-14. Again, mistaken. While acknowledge faced defendant relator, eliminates Government-and changes defendants ""attach[ing] past.''' 767); 14, n. (" [P]roof relator'') (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Collins Youngblood, 497 37, 49, 2715, 2723, 111 30 ("A abolishes affirmative defense'' violates Ex Post Facto Clause); Beazell Ohio, 269 167, 169-170, 46 68, 70 216 (1925) ("any statute deprives crime available according time act committed, prohibited post facto''). 18 "create action.'' "as result Amendments, federal open relator States,'' whereas [p]rior once learned claim, assert claimant.'' 16; (recognizing "expanded pursue actions enforce'' claimant's Government). 19 class plaintiffs, different kind They good. recognized: 20 ""[Qui are] passed theory, experience old modern civilization, least expensive most means preventing frauds Treasury perpetrators them liable persons acting, you please, strong stimulus personal ill hope gain. Prosecutions conducted compare ordinary methods enterprising privateer slow-going vessel.''' Marcus Hess, 317 537, 541, 5, 379, 383, 87 443 (1943) Griswold, 24 361, 366 (D.Or.1885)). 21 arguably mere noncompliance reporting fisc.5 permitting expanded universe plaintiffs incentives, 518 (1913). submissions. litigation, much extending limitations pre-existing period expired revives moribund see, Chenault Postal Service, 37 535, 539 1994) (relying "a newly enacted lengthens plaintiff's otherwise statutory scheme so party liability'') omitted). true remained party. It that, asserts, elimination action'' "change 23 jurisdictional, hence went absent statement congressional intent, favor retroactivity statutes. misread decision "presumption'' mentioned fact often jurisdiction-allocating pending cases limited failing generally rule itself, recognizes. 15, 8. stated "Application usually "takes right tribunal case.' Present normally governs situations "speak power obligations parties.''' 1502 (emphasis added, citations 25 shall entertain can fairly said Cf. 275, 1502; 291, 1524-1525 concurring). Such brought, all. allocate among fora. well. phrased "jurisdictional'' terms, other. III 26 sum, relevant submission 1986. If deprive defense. Given absence expression FCA, obliged vacate below, remand proceedings opinion. 27 ordered. syllabus constitutes Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. determination, actually benefitted charging borne withdrew earlier finding noncompliance, immaterial, paid withheld project. 136-137; 68a. chose intervene entitled §3730(b)(2), nor move likewise do, §3730(c)(2)(A). raised several constitutional challenges provisions presently us. (1996) (limiting nonconstitutional questions petition). both date amendments, need address events purposes analysis. That "on 17, relator's interests necessarily coincide. Moreover, specifies, "for Government.'' §3730(b)(1) added).

Classification Label: 7