Cochise Consultancy v. United States ex rel. Hunt
In brief
A whistleblower can rely on the three-year, knowledge-based period even without the government joining the case, but the whistleblower’s knowledge does not start that period.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · May 13, 2019 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- This case asked how the False Claims Act’s statute of limitations applies when a private whistleblower brings a qui tam suit and the United States chooses not to intervene.
- Who it affects
- The ruling allows a whistleblower to rely on the three-year, knowledge-based period even when the government declines to join the case. The whistleblower’s own knowledge does not start that period.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court held that the whistleblower may rely on the Act’s 3-year knowledge-based limitations period in that situation, but the whistleblower is not the "official of the United States" whose knowledge starts that period.
The case clarifies how False Claims Act filing deadlines work when a private whistleblower brings a suit and the government declines to join.
Question presented
The question presented is whether a relator in a False Claims Act qui tam action may rely on the statute of limitations in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2) in a suit in which the United States has declined to intervene and, if so, whether the relator constitutes an "official of the United States" for purposes of Section 3731(b)(2).
What the Court decided
Holding
The limitations period in §3731(b)(2) applies in a relatorinitiated suit in which the Government has declined to intervene. Both Government-initiated suits under §3730(a) and relator-initiated suits under §3730(b) are “civil action[s] under section 3730.” Thus, the plain text of the statute makes the two limitations periods applicable in both types of suits. Cochise claims that starting a limitations period when the party entitled to bring a claim learns the relevant facts is a default rule of tolling provisions, so subsection (b)(2) should apply only when the Government is a party.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished its review. The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling remains in place, so the lower court can apply the timing rule to the suit.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did Cochise Consultancy decide about the filing deadline?
- The Court upheld the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling. The three-year, knowledge-based period applies when the government declines to join, but the whistleblower is not the government official whose knowledge starts it.
- Is the whistleblower the government official named in the statute?
- No. The Court said a private whistleblower is neither appointed as an officer of the United States nor employed by the United States.
- Was the decision unanimous, and who delivered the opinion?
- Yes. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
- What remains after the Supreme Court’s decision?
- The Supreme Court’s review is complete. The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling remains in place, and the lower court can apply the timing rule to the suit.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.