Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States

Relator Billy Joe Hunt filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, alleging that Cochise Consultancy, Inc. and another contractor defrauded the U.S. government by submitting false claims for services performed clearing unexploded ordnance in Iraq. Hunt gave the government the required disclosures in 2010 and later filed his complaint. The government declined to intervene. The district court dismissed the case, finding it barred by the statute of limitations. The Eleventh Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among circuits regarding the proper calculation of the FCA's two applicable limitations periods when the government does not intervene. The Court held that a relator is not an "official of the United States," and thus the alternative 10-year statute of repose applies. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that a relator is not an "official of the United States" for purposes of triggering the FCA's 10-year statute of repose found in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2). The relator may rely on the 10-year period only if the government intervenes or the relator's action is brought within three years of when facts are known or reasonably should have been known to the relevant government official, but no more than 10 years after the violation.

Whether a qui tam relator qualifies as an "official of the United States" under the False Claims Act's statute of limitations, thereby allowing the government to benefit from the extended 10-year limitations period even when it has not intervened, or whether the relator is limited to the ordinary 6-year period.

The decision narrowed the application of the extended statute of limitations for whistleblowers when the government declines to intervene, potentially limiting the timeframe for qui tam suits. This strengthened certainty for government contractors regarding historical claims while clarifying the temporal boundaries of FCA liability. It underscored the distinction between private relators and government officials, shaping future whistleblower litigation strategy.