United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.
599 U.S. 419
SCOTUS2023Background
- The False Claims Act (FCA) allows private relators to sue on behalf of the United States (qui tam) and requires initial complaints to be filed under seal while the Government decides whether to intervene.
- Dr. Jesse Polansky filed a qui tam complaint in 2012 against Executive Health Resources (EHR), alleging Medicare overbilling; the Government declined to intervene during the seal period.
- The case proceeded through extensive discovery, imposing burdens (including potential privileged disclosures) on the Government, which repeatedly reassessed its position.
- In 2019 the Government filed a motion under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) to dismiss the action over Polansky’s objection; the District Court granted the motion.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Government may seek dismissal so long as it has intervened (including post-seal upon showing good cause), and (2) Rule 41(a) governs the standard for such dismissals; the Supreme Court affirmed on those grounds.
- Justice Thomas dissented, arguing the FCA’s text does not permit post-decline unilateral dismissal and raising Article II constitutional concerns about qui tam suits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Polansky) | Defendant's Argument (United States / EHR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government may move to dismiss under § 3730(c)(2)(A) after it declined to intervene during the seal period | Dismissal power exists only if the Government intervened during the seal period; a later intervention cannot strip the relator of the right to conduct the action | The Government can move to dismiss whenever it has the dismissal power—i.e., whenever it intervenes (even if it never intervened, the text permits dismissal) | The Government may move to dismiss under § 3730(c)(2)(A) whenever it has intervened—either during the seal period or later upon good cause; without intervention, Paragraph 2 does not apply |
| Standard a district court should apply to a Government motion to dismiss over a relator’s objection | Proposes more searching or unusual review (argues limited Government power or higher scrutiny) | The Government urges deference and a broad dismissal power | Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) governs; apply Rule 41(a)(2) post-answer with required § 3730(c)(2)(A) notice/hearing; courts should generally grant dismissal if the Government reasonably shows litigation burdens outweigh benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928 (2009) (Government is a real party in interest in qui tam suits)
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000) (qui tam actions effect a partial assignment of the Government's claim)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (Rule 41 analysis and defendant-focused considerations in voluntary dismissal)
- Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147 (1883) (interpretive principle that every clause and word of a statute should have meaning)
- United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106 (1911) (avoid reading statutes to put provisions in conflict)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (silence in statute seldom indicates Congress meant to displace Federal Rules)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (litigating on behalf of the United States involves executive-function and Appointments Clause considerations)