The False Claims Act's Influence (1863) - the Whistleblower Protection Act (1989 and 1994) - Supreme Court Decision (2006)

The False Claims Act's influence (1863)

The False Claims Act was established to offer incentives to individuals who reported companies or individuals defrauding the government. It was introduced by Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to target sales of fake gunpowder to the Union during the Civil War. In 1986, the False Claims Act was brought back and Congress added anti-retaliation protections. The Act also specifies that the whistleblower can share in up to 30% of the proceeds of the lawsuit. According to the Taxpayers against Fraud (TAF) False Claims Act Legal Center, this Act has resulted in more than $17 billion dollars of recoveries for the U.S. government since 1986. Major nonprofits that have paid large settlements in recent years include major universities and government entities. Financial rewards to whistleblowers can, however, create an incentive to report bogus false claims. The Act imposes monetary penalties on bogus whistleblowers.

The Whistleblower Protection Act (1989 and 1994)

Under the Whistleblower Protection Act, passed in 1989 and amended in 1994, federal employees are protected from workplace retaliation when disclosing waste and fraud. The purpose of the Act and subsequent amendments was to strengthen the protections available to federal employees. Congress has considered reforms that would overhaul the act and enhance protections for federal employees who expose fraudulent activity, waste, and threats to public safety. Such legislation was debated last year, and in 2007, the House of Representatives approved the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which overhauls federal whistleblower law.

Supreme Court decision (2006)

In May 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in Garcetti v. Ceballos that whistleblowers who make statements while performing their jobs may not be constitutionally protected. Richard Ceballos, a supervising deputy attorney, was asked by defense counsel to review a case where defense counsel claimed the affidavit used by the police to obtain a search warrant was inaccurate. Ceballos concluded upon his review that there were significant misrepresentations in the affidavit, and he communicated his findings in a memo to his supervisors, the petitioners, and the trial court. Ceballos later claimed that the petitioners retaliated against him for his memo. Reversing the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court found that the memo was not protected because Ceballos wrote it while performing his employment duties. Congress has approved

legislation (the Senate approved an amendment to the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act and the House approved the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act) that addresses the possible ramifications of this decision.