Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Stephen B. Grant, on Behalf of the United States and the State of Iowa v. Steven Zorn, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 22-3481, 22-3591 · judgment July 8, 2024
Before the decision, about 1.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a federal-government petitioner and an Eighth Circuit decision below.
Question presented
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) prescribes statutory damages, including trebled actual damages and civil penalties adjusted for inflation for each violation. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). In this non-intervened qui tam action, a divided Eighth Circuit panel borrowed this Court’s Due Process precedent to find the imposition of the statutory relief unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. This Court has previously prescribed the Excessive Fines Clause test in United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 326 (1998), noting the importance of legislative deference. Accordingly, the first question presented is: 1. Whether the FCA’s statutory civil penalty must be limited to a single-digit multiplier of the actual damages under the Eighth Amendment, in a non-intervened qui tam action? (No.). As to liability, the FCA makes it unlawful to, inter alia, knowingly present “false or fraudulent” claims for payment. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A), (B). This Court recently reviewed the FCA’s scienter requirement, suggesting the “false or fraudulent” language creates alternatives, with a nod to common law fraud principles. United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., 598 U.S. 739, 750 (2023). The District Court did not have the benefit of Schutte at the time of its trial order, though its sentiment was argued below. Accordingly, the second question presented is:
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Adam D Zenor
Zenor Law Firm, PLC
For respondent
Jessica Lynn Ellsworth
Hogan Lovells US, LLP
Proceedings
- Jun 23 2025Petition DENIED.
- Jun 03 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/18/2025.
- Apr 30 2025Rescheduled.
- Apr 29 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2025.
- Apr 22 2025Reply of petitioner Stephen B. Grant filed.
- Apr 11 2025Brief of respondents Steven Zorn, et al. in opposition filed.
- Apr 11 2025Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. VIDED.
- Feb 05 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 11, 2025.
- Feb 04 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 12, 2025 to April 11, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 15 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 12, 2025.
- Jan 14 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 10, 2025 to March 12, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 18 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 10, 2025.
- Dec 16 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 10, 2025 to February 10, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 11 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025.
- Dec 11 2024Response Requested. (Due January 10, 2025)
- Dec 05 2024Waiver of right of respondent Steven Zorn, et al. to respond filed.
- Nov 13 2024Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 16, 2024)